a eee a ee eee ap isepuneae’ 39 See 8 th 7 N 
< ite? 5 9 Pe 
earns ete lei : 219 ihe , ; Se , +. , 
poe Sar este lant? Na ii teller Ve Py Rtye tase he halt ae : ee Sp otuiatiol ok ie 
be “9 bs yew ‘ rt: La > - gen * tle $ 7 . at “ agile te 
i j 8 x pei Hs eB me! fa Pwia'eta ite a by? =P ats sites 
. wee Sichake pata Tost a “tir ea Poh Pei cotyl abate ehy 
oa ee - ; : 


- sf eg ant ye ‘ se 

a tyiste iota he aot a tobe RAs ty tet hae pictabet : 
: ws ate: et foe ntcge> Hanes SS) ne ; i 
nate sb ee enn barice, bese nee sre eet ; 
PoP - neko he . -$ % : ens v ss ; 

: y , hs 2 Fro Siig aes 
rine - fehatered 


gi B Se . 
Pahoa LPs nbc igs bck te eats Sk Sa I 
te < An} - 7 beh 


Py iviiet oie pe ytee 

f : Pol Sa nee 
Srey ae siatpraetadehanbyinrete afer at ty 

s Sreageceed e . x o pees: elie bas int NE Fe NS 
*. 3 — c 


one oe 


F . 
ae aN oP ete nd veh ot eee! 
Bone cnetche betpnenm et Ee - 

i a ng wa 
Agee te Baty Ont .' 


> 
tee oe 
Suey lk alte Be tah 


Petre ah 


Stace a 
whe Fg ker 9 
wae 
Mistet. 
s Pred 
Sree ere w series 
Kat hae alr ry hota te rn Me Bey 


os 

. erent stahe cle aie tekentserpre 
Steecnb ac Seale ele 

aes eg enya Re ips benete reat 
noms ‘>? 


be. 
*, yn Pater. la A 
pejseter nck ae grter eS 
; ay Mae 
a Bey 
“al ks ee 


ieee 
~ 
te 





PN kta yun Wan 
AA 


a 


é 
aT 


“J 


‘y - 
U7 fats.) ak 
Ci a ma eh 


% 


Hee ake 
‘ iene pI) 0 
Me 





7 
VOL. XXXIII PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW PUBLICATIONS WHOLE No. 148 
NO. I 1923 





Psychological Monographs 


EDITED BY 


JAMES ROWLAND ANGELL, Yate UNIversitTy 
HOWARD C. WARREN, Princeton University (Review) 
JOHN B. WATSON, New York (J. of Exp. Psychol.) 
SHEPHERD JI. FRANZ, Govt. Hosp. ror INSANE (Bulletin) and 
MADISON BENTLEY, University or Itrrnots (Index) 


STUDIES FROM THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


The Effect of Manual Guidance Upon 


Maze Learning 


BY 
We 
KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE, Pu.D. 


Instructor in Psychology, The University of Minnesota 


PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW COMPANY 
PRINCETON, N. J. 


Acents: G. E. STECHERT & CO., Lonpon (2 Star Yard, Carey St., W. C.) 
Paris (16 rue de Condé) 


ib be how 


ey 


ee 


‘yk shy. Ba a 





ACKNOWLEDGMENT 


This study was suggested and directed by Professor Harvey A. 
Carr, for whose guidance in conducting the experiments, assist- 
ance in interpreting the data, and criticism in revising the manu- 
script the writer is deeply grateful. Thanks are due to the many 
students who were kind enough to act as subjects. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/effectofmanualgu0Oludg 


f if 


ao a iiel 


VII. 


CONTENTS 


INDRODUCTIONE @ odaesleuet. Pee, eee ens eine ares Meee 
THE EFFECT oF VARYING AMOUNTS OF INITIAL GUIDANCE 


THE EFFECT OF VARYING THE AMOUNT AND POSITION 
OF INTERPOLATED GUIDANCE ..........--- ee Fee pu 


THe EFFECT OF GUIDANCE UPON THE LEARNING OF 
VIA 2 OTe e eC eil o ag nod ote BF aa eh. NORMS LE 


DirEcT VERSUS INDIRECT EFFECTS OF GUIDANCE ....... 


SUMMABYLOR UN ESULTS) oot che eee re’ PR eee Gee er 


PAGE 





CHARTER Rt 


INTRODUCTION 


This investigation is concerned with the influence of manual 
guidance as a control upon learning. Human subjects were em- 
ployed exclusively, and the problem selected was the mastery of a 
stylus maze. Learning directed by manual guidance, which is 
designated “controlled” learning, is contrasted with the free, un- 
directed, trial and error type of learning, referred to as “normal.” 
In the case of controlled learning, the experimenter guided the 
stylus in the subject’s hand for a given number of trials over the 
correct pathway of the maze, thereby obviating all error possibili- 
- ties. The procedure is practically identical with certain educational 
methods of instruction. For example, the teacher of writing or 
drawing may grasp the pupil’s hand and forcefully initiate the 
proper movements. Tuition in various forms of needle-work, such 
as tatting, crocheting and knitting, is sometimes supplemented by 
manual guidance. The methods in vogue for teaching dancing 
and those occasionally employed in swimming and violin playing 
also suggest themselves as appropriate illustrations. 

In the present study we have attempted to determine experimen- 
tally the following aspects of this problem: 

1. The effectiveness of manual guidance. We sought to discover 
whether such guidance exerted a beneficial, negligible, or dele- 
terious effect upon the learning of a maze. 

2. The relative effectiveness of the guidance. Our concern was 
to determine whether a given number of controlled trials was more 
or less effective than an equal number of uncontrolled trials. 

3. The amount of guidance productive of optimum results. We 
wished to know whether the effectiveness of the guidance in- 
creased in proportion to the amount given. Were eight guided 
trials productive of more beneficial results than four, and four 
than two? 

4. The position of the guidance in the learning from which op- 


2 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


timum results accrued. Whether guidance was more effective when 
given in the initial trials or interpolated at critical stages of the 
learning, was the problem investigated. 

5. The variation in effectiveness with different acts of motor 
skill. We sought to determine whether the effectiveness of the 
guidance was a function of the particular act learned. Would the 
control exert a more beneficial effect upon one type of maze than 
upon another ? : 

6. The effect of guidance upon the mastery of subsequent acts 
of skill. Our purpose was to learn whether subjects who mastered 
one maze under controlled conditions of learning would be at an 
advantage or a disadvantage in mastering a second maze, when 
their performance was compared with that of subjects who were 
uncontrolled in the former. In other words, would the amount of 
transfer be conditioned by the method of learning the first maze? 

7. Direct versus indirect effects of the guidance. We wished to 
know what relations obtained between the influence of guidance 
upon a given maze and the influence through transfer upon that 
same maze, of guidance introduced in the learning of a previous 
maze. 


APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE 


The two stylus mazes which were utilized differed in size, pat- 
tern, and construction. Maze A was the one employed by Professor 
Carr in his recent investigation of the influence of visual guidance 
in maze learning. Its dimensions were 16144” x 1614”. The pattern 
is represented in Figure I, where B designates the beginning and E 
the end of the pathway. The stylus consisted of a small circular 
brass disc on a vertical rod, which was attached to the hard rub- 
ber handle by a ball and socket joint. The maze was so constructed 
that the stylus could be lifted out of the grooves only at the two 
points B and £. At the completion of each trial, the experimenter 
removed it from the goal and replaced it at the beginning. 

Maze B, the pattern of which is also represented in Figure I, 
was that employed by Pechstein in his investigation of whole vs. 
part methods in motor learning. The external dimensions were 
54” x 534”, and the walls were equal in thickness to the width of 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 





Maze B 
Ficure I 


4 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


the grooves, namely 4”. The stylus was of hard rubber provided 
with a small rounded knob which ran easily in the grooves. Half 
an inch from this end was a shoulder which prevented the sub- 
jects’ fingers from grazing the surface of the maze, and furnished 
a convenient means for holding the stylus upright. 

The two mazes were placed flat on a low table and held securely 
in position by restraining strips of wood nailed about them. Over 
each maze was erected a large square frame-work, upon which 
was tacked a black cloth hood. The folds hung freely on the side 
towards the subject, thus serving to screen the maze entirely from 
sight, while permitting unhampered movements. The side of the 
frame toward the experimenter was uncovered so that the mas- 
tery of the maze might be easily observed and recorded. 

A total of 255 University students, the majority being selected 
from classes in Introductory Psychology, served as subjects. They 
were divided into seventeen groups of fifteen each, eleven groups 
learning maze A, and six groups maze B, under varying condi- 
tions. Each group consisted of eight men and seven women, the 
number being kept the same to equalize possible sex differences. 

The procedure was as follows: After the subject had taken his 
seat before the table, he was instructed to sit squarely in front of 
the hooded maze and as near it as possible. It was next ascertained 
whether he was right or left-handed, but in either case he was 
asked to use in this experiment the hand he was accustomed to 
write with. The experimenter then gave these directions orally, if 
maze A was to be learned: “Please lift the curtain and put your 
hand under without looking, and I will give you the stylus. It is 
like a pencil and you hold it like a pencil. You see it moves along 
in grooves (the experimenter moved it back and forth) and you 
can’t lift it out (the experimenter illustrated). There is only one 
place in the maze where you can lift it out, and the aim of the ex- 
periment is to keep moving the stylus about and exploring new 
pathways until you reach that place. You will know when you are 
there, but if you should not, I'll tell you. There is only one possible | 
route and that is kept constant, but in addition to that there are a 
lot of blind alleys. The object is to learn to move the stylus over 
the true pathway without retracing and without entering any of 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING’ § 


the blind alleys. Keep at it until you make four perfect records out 
of five trials. You can use any speed you like, but remember, speed 
does not count in this experiment. The whole object is to learn the 
maze in just as few trials as you possibly can.”’ 

Practically the same directions were given if maze B was to 
be learned. The difference in structure of the two mazes, however, 
necessitated these changes in the third and fourth sentences. 

“You see it moves along in grooves and you must keep it in 
the grooves and hold it as erect as possible. (The experimenter 
illustrated the correct position.) Now the aim of the experiment 
is to keep moving the stylus about and exploring new pathways 
until you finally come to a larger open space. You will know when 
you reach that position,” etc. 

When guidance was given during the learning of a maze the 
‘experimenter grasped the base of the stylus below the point where 
it was held by the subject, and guided the subject’s hand steadily, 
and at a uniform rate, over the correct pathway, thus preventing 
any errors. Each subject who was thus guided was given these ad- 
ditional directions: ‘“‘For the first two times (the number varying 
with the group to which the subject belonged) I shall take hold 
of the base of the stylus and guide your hand over the correct 
pathway. You attend as closely as possible and get all the help you 
can.” If, during any portion of the guidance, a tendency on the 
part of the subject to resist direction or to take an aggressive part 
in the movement was noticed, the experimenter requested him to 
keep his hand as passive and relaxed as possible. The maintenance 
of this condition was considered important. 

In general the maze was mastered within a single sitting. Periods 
of rest were frequent throughout the learning to prevent fatigue, 
and it was no uncommon event for several such rests to occur dur- 
ing the first trial. In such a case, the subject renewed his attempts 
at the point where he left off. No schedule of rests was rigidly ad- 
hered to, however, because individuals differed in their suscepti- 
bility to fatigue, and the need appeared to depend upon the total 
distance traversed, which was subject to wide variations in each 
trial. The series of guided trials was given in uninterrupted se- 
quence. 


6 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


The experimenter recorded only the number of trials and errors, 
separating the latter into retracings and cul-de-sacs. Each section in 
the true pathway, however short or long, was considered a unit, 
which, when partially or wholly traversed in retracing, was counted 
one error. Entrance into a cul-de-sac was always counted as a cul- 
de-sac error, whether the direction of previous movement was 
toward the beginning or the goal. If the stylus was moved back 
and forth within one cul-de-sac, however, this was recorded as but 
one error. The criterion of mastery was four perfect records out 
of five successive attempts. 

All experimentation was conducted in one room where approx- 
imately constant conditions were maintained. No testing was ever 
done with visitors present, and no interruption was permissible 
during the course of an experiment. The hours at which the ex- 
periments were given varied from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., but care was 
taken to distribute the times fairly equally throughout the groups, 
in order that possible influence by factors of diurnal efficiency 
might be prevented. If, as frequently occurred, a subject failed to 
master the maze in one hour, he returned the next day or days at 
the same time and completed the learning. 


CHAPTER II 


THE EFFECT OF VARYING AMOUNTS OF INITIAL GUIDANCE 


The object of the first experiment conducted was to determine 
the value of initial guidance in mastering maze A. 

Six groups of fifteen subjects each were employed. In five 
groups the experimenter controlled the initial trials by guiding the 
stylus in the subject’s hand, thereby rendering errors impossible, 
and permitting experience only with the pattern of the true path- 
way. These groups are, therefore, referred to as the “‘controlled”’ 
groups..One group was given this guidance the first two trials and 
the remainder of the learning was completed without aid. It was 
designated A 1-2. A second group was similarly guided the first 
four trials; a third, the first eight; a fourth, the first twelve, and a 
fifth, the first sixteen trials. These groups are designated A 1-4, 
A 1-8, A I-12, and A 1-16 respectively, the A referring to the 
maze, and the figures to the number of guided trials given. Subse- 
quent to the control, each subject completed the mastery of the © 
problem without further aid. These records are compared with 
those of group A -o, which learned the maze entirely undirected, 
by the ordinary trial and error method, and is referred to as the 
“normal” group. 

An analysis of these results may be conveniently made in three 
sections, concerned respectively with the following questions: 
I. “Was the guidance effective as a control, 7.e., did the subjects 
actually learn the maze in part during the controlled trials?” 
II. “Were the guided trials more or less efficacious than an equal 
number of unguided trials?” III. “What is the relative effective- 
ness of small versus large amounts of initial guidance?” 

I, With respect to the first comparison, it is evident that if the 
control was entirely without effect, the number of trials and errors 
required to master the maze after the guidance should approxi- 
mate that required by the normal group. Conversely, any decrease 
represented by the trial and error records of the controlled groups 


7 


8 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


relative to the normal group, would indicate its effectiveness. Table 
I presents the data on which the comparison is based. 














TABLE I 

Uncontrolled Trials and Errors in the Guided and Normal Groups 

Uncon- Errors Percentages of Saving 
Group trolled Ce 
Trials Retracings | Cul-de-sacs | Trials| Retracings |Cul-de-sacs 

A - 0/288 + 80] 74.1 + 25.3] 120.4 = 45.3 =: ie ss 

Alt =) 2U2E 2S. i fae che ae Ot) 28, eo 81 68 

AST =a 25.1, =2b0 T7223 sh coe O.0ends Ome 30.5 13 69 59 

A r=, 8) 16.5: 9.01 28.112 eo Shard. 7 24622 62 65 

AUT {= 112 817.0) = 905.0" 10.08 4_Olle 25-5 TE 39 85 79 

AGT 16 25ers) Oskesee7.2 aot tate 13 86 73 





In the first column the number of initially guided trials are des- 
ignated by the names of the groups. The second column, headed 
Uncontrolled Trials, represents the average number of trials re- 
quired for completing the mastery of the maze subsequent to the 
guidance. The mean deviations of the trials for the various groups 
are given after these totals. No probable errors are included be- 
cause these would be meaningless in groups of such small num- 
bers. Under Errors appear the average number of retracing and 
cul-de-sac errors per individual and the mean deviations. The col- 
umns under the brace-heading Percentages of Saving represent 
the reductions made in trials and errors by the controlled groups 
relative to the normal group. 

A comparison among the groups of the average errors per trial 
constitutes a further means of treating the data. Table II presents 
these results and the percentages of saving for each controlled 
group. 

The figures in the second and third columns were obtained by 
dividing the average number of retracings and cul-de-sac errors 
by the average number of trials the group worked at the maze un- 
aided, these data being supplied by Table I. The percentages of » 
saving in the controlled groups were then computed. 

The following conclusions are based upon the comparative data 
presented in these two tables. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 9 


TABLE II 
Average Errors per Uncontrolled Trial in the Guided and Normal Groups 





Average Errors per Trial Percentages of Saving 
Group 

Retracings Cul-de-sacs Retracings Cul-de-sacs 
Act’ - 40 2.57 4.18 Ba she 
UAL Tar ee 68 1.84 74 56 
Aad. .Q2 1.95 65 52 
Atr- 8 1.44 2.14 44 49 
A1l- 12 61 1.42 76 66 
AI - 16 .40 1.32 84 68 


1. The guidance was decidedly efficacious. Since all controlled 
groups.required fewer trials and errors to master the maze, it is 
evident that they completed a certain amount of the learning dur- 
‘ing the period of the control. The degree of mastery attained is 
represented by the percentages of saving in the last three columns 
of Table I. During its two controls, group A 1-2 mastered one- 
fourth of the maze (26% ) with respect to trials, and approximate- 
ly three-fourths (81% and 68% ) with respect to the two types of 
error. 

2. There is a tendency exhibited for the effectiveness of the 
guidance upon errors to vary directly with the amount given. 
Although the group given two guided trials represents an excep- 
tion to this rule, the groups given larger amounts of control exhibit 
decreasingly fewer errors as compared with the records for the 
normal group. Upon trials, the effect of varying amounts of 
guidance is quite irregular. 

3. Guidance does not exercise a similar effect upon both trials 
and errors. The decrease which it produces in errors exceeds by a 
large amount the decrease in trials. For example, in group A 1-8, 
the savings in errors (62% and 65%) are twice as large as the 
savings in trials (32% ). In other words, the learning when meas- 
ured by error elimination is greater than when measured by trial 
reduction. 

4. Guidance produces an increase in variability with respect to 
trials and a decrease with respect to errors, as indicated by the 
mean deviations. 


10 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


3. Guidance operates to produce large reductions in the average 
errors per trial, as is evident from the percentages of saving in 
Table II. For example, group A 1-4, which, subsequent to the 
control, required 25.1 trials to complete the mastery of the maze, 
made .g2 retracing errors and 1.95 cul-de-sac errors per trial. 
These represent a decrease over the records of the normal group, . 
and consequently a saving, of 65% and 52%, respectively. The 
largest number of controls is productive of the greatest savings. 

The introspective accounts of the subjects support these con- 
clusions. With but very few exceptions—and these chiefly poor 
subjects whose performance was inferior—there was unanimous 
agreement as to the aid afforded by the guidance. Individual re- 
ports varied with respect to the exact form this aid took. Some 
said the guidance enabled them to develop a visual image of the 
maze as a whole; others that it helped them at the beginning, the 
middle, or the end of the maze; still others, that it gave them a 
general idea of the direction of motion to be followed. Several 
declared that they had no visual imagery of the maze, but “had _ 
the feeling” where the stylus should move next. More sophisti- 
cated subjects reported kinaesthetic aid. Whether the guidance was 
utilized in terms of visual or kinaesthetic sensations, or images, 
or both, could not be determined by introspective accounts alone; 
but the fact that it appeared helpful is significant when taken in 
conjunction with the objective data. 

To summarize, therefore, we find that manual guidance over 
the correct pathway during the initial trials of learning a stylus 
maze is effective as a control. All controlled groups attained a cer- 
tain degree of mastery over the problem during the guidance. Sub- 
sequently they learned the maze in less trials, with fewer total 
errors, and with reduced error records per trial than they would 
otherwise have done. 

II. The relative efficacy of guided versus unguided trials may 
next be considered under the three following aspects: 1. “Granted 
that they learned the maze in part during the guidance, were the 
controlled groups superior or inferior to the normal group with 
respect to the total trial records?” 2. “Did they enter upon their 
self-initiated learning at a more or less advanced stage of error 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 11 


elimination relative to the normal group at the corresponding 
point?” 3. “Did they maintain a higher or lower error record in 
subsequent trials than the normal group during the same period?” 
These questions may be answered by both tabular and graphical 
analyses. 

1. The first question necessitates a comparison based upon the 
total number of trials, which, in the guided groups, includes the 
controlled as well as the uncontrolled trials. If a given number of 
initial guided trials was more effective than the same number of 
initial unguided trials in the normal group, it should be evident 
from a decreased number of total trials and errors. Table III pre- 
sents the records for the total trials together with the percentages 
of saving and loss. Increase relative to the normal group—conse- 
quently loss—is indicated by a minus sign. 


TABLE III 
Total Trials in the Guided and Normal Groups 
Percentages 
Group Total Trials of 


Saving and Loss 











‘Ago=1.0 28.8 Miss 
GES a2 19 
AlI- 4 29.1 — iI 
A r.--8 27.5 5 
A I= 32 29.9 —4 
AT - 16 41.1 —43 





It is evident that group A 1-2 is the only one to manifest marked 
superiority over the normal group. The record for its total trials 
represents a saving of 19% over that of the normal group. Groups 
A 1-4, A 1-8, and A I-12 are approximately equal to the normal 
group with respect to total trials, and group A 1-16 is decidedly in- 
ferior. Apparently then, so far as trials are concerned, two initial 
guided trials are more effective than the same number of unguided 
trials; and sixteen are considerably less effective than the same 
number of unguided trials. 

No figures are presented for the average errors per trial, com- 
puted on the basis of the total trials. It was shown above that all 
the controlled groups learned the maze in part during the guided 


12 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


trials. Moreover, since guidance prevented errors, and since sav- 
ings were exhibited when the uncontrolled trials alone were util- 
ized, as in Table II, it is obvious that even more marked savings 
result when the total trials are employed. The greater the number 
of trials, the smaller the average error per trial. From this aspect, 
then, all controlled groups are superior to the normal group. 

2. The second topic—concerned with the question whether the 
controlled groups entered upon their undirected trials at a more or 
less advanced stage of the learning, relative to the normal group at 
the corresponding point—may be treated by a study of the learning 
curves. Typical curves are presented in Figure II for average re- 
tracing and cul-de-sac errors per trial. In each case the diagram for 
the controlled group is compared with that for the normal group. 

It is evident that all guided groups began the learning after the 
controls at advanced stages, relative to the initial performance of 
the normal group. For example, the average number of cul-de-sac 
errors made in the initial trial by group A I-4 was 5.3, as compared 
with 47.5 for group A -o. 

On the other hand, when the performance of the controlled 
groups in the first trial after the guidance, is compared with that 
of the normal group for the corresponding trial, we find that all 
groups, save A 1-2, are at a less advanced stage of the learning. 
Whereas A 1-4 made 5.3 cul-de-sac errors in the fifth trial, group 
A -o made only 3.1. Thus the initial errors of each controlled 
group are smaller than the initial errors of the normal group, but 
larger than the errors in the corresponding trial of the normal 
group. A I-2 represents an exception to this statement. 

3. The third topic—concerned with the question whether con- 
trolled groups maintained a higher or lower error record in subse- 
quent trials than the normal group during the corresponding trials 
—may be answered partly by inspection of the curves and partly 
by a study of the comparative data presented in Table IV. 

It was pointed out in a preceding paragraph that the curves of | 
the controlled groups had their origin at higher levels than those 
of the normal curves for the corresponding trials. Attention must 
now be drawn to the fact that these curves do not maintain that 
higher level, but descend within a few trials, and thereafter closely 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 13 


ERRORS ERRORS 
so 50 


40 





30 
20 
lO 
‘0 
TRIALS 
ERRORS ERRORS 
so $0 





TRIALS TRIALS 
Ficure II 
Cul-de-sac Errors Retracing Errors 
Group A -o —— Group A -o — 
Group AI-2.... Group AI-2. 
Cul-de-sac Errors Retracing Errors 
Group A -o —— Group A -o —— 


Group AI-4.... Group AI-4.... 


14 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


approximate the curves for the normal group, One exception to 
both these statements is to be found in the diagram for group 
A 1-2. This curve not only begins at a lower point than that of the 
normal curve at the third trial, but also maintains, fairly consist- 
ently, a lower level throughout the learning. 

Table IV presents data which supplement these statements. The 
total errors made by each guided group are compared with the nor- 
mal records for the corresponding trials. Columns 2 and 3 repre- 
sent the number of retracing and cul-de-sac errors made in group 
A -o after a given number of trials which are specified in column 1. 
Columns 5 and 6 present the errors made by groups A 1-2 . 

A 1-16. The figures in the last two columns are the percentages of 
saving and loss in errors computed from the data of the controlled 
groups relative to the normal group. As formerly, increase or loss 


TABLESLY 


Errors of the Guided Groups versus Errors of the Normal Group for the 
Corresponding Trials 


Errors Errors Pctg. of Sav’g and Loss 
Group A - 0 |Retrac-/Cul-de-/ Group |Retrac-|Cul-de-) Retrac- Cul-de- 
ings sacs ings sacs ings sacs 








After 2 trials} 18.5 54.8 |A T=) 2] 14-4 39.0 22 29 
NE ie 10.5 AY .One| alee eee 48.9 —120 — 19 
te Oe 6.6 2.0 |AIr- 8] 281 41.7 —326 — 49 
Sip eID 2 ie 4.3 19.5 |A I-12] 109 25.5 —1I50 — 31 
RL Wee on 2.4 13.1 |A I - 16| I0.1 33.1 —322 —I152 





is indicated by a minus sign. Thus group A 1-8, after eight initi- 
ally guided trials, made 28.1 retracing errors and 41.7 cul-de-sac 
errors. The normal group, subsequent to its first eight trials, made 
only 6.6 retracing errors and 28.0 cul-de-sac errors. Evidently the 
normal group required fewer errors in mastering the maze after 
the eighth trial, than did the controlled group which had been 
guided that number of times. The latter made 326% more retrac- 
ings and 49% more cul-de-sac errors than did the former. In only 
one controlled group, therefore, did the guidance exercise a bene- 
ficial effect upon succeeding trials. All other controlled groups 
made more errors while completing the problem subsequent to the 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 15 


guidance, and hence maintained a slightly higher level as compared 
with the normal group. 

A further comparison (for which the tabular data are not in- 
cluded) based upon the average error records per trial of the con- 
trolled groups with those of the normal group for the correspond- 
ing trials, is in conformity with these results. Here again the only 
group to exhibit a saving over the normal group is that with two 
initial controls. 

Two features in the data of Table IV are to be noted. One is 
the tendency for the percentages of loss in errors to increase with 
the number of initial controls. Thus A 1-8, at the conclusion of its 
period of guidance, exhibits greater losses than A 1-4, when the 
error records of both are compared with those of the normal 
group. Although group A 1-12 forms an exception, group A I-16 
manifests the largest losses in errors of any group. This tendency 
is obviously a function of the form of the learning curves. The 
period of most rapid improvement occurs during the initial trials. 
The subsequent period is one of gradual elimination of relatively 
few errors. It is evident, therefore, that the initial unguided trials 
of the controlled groups, when compared with the later trials of 
the normal group, will represent increased error scores. More- 
over, this disparity will become greater as the groups are given 
more guidance, because the effectiveness of the control does not 
increase in proportion to the amount given, and the normal group 
has continued to make improvement. 

A second feature of the data in Table IV is that, although the 
guidance exercised a similar effect upon both types of error, it 
operated to increase the losses in retracings more proportionately 
than those in cul-de-sac errors. There are relatively few of the 
latter made, and they are eliminated sooner, as indicated in the 
diagrams. This fact is undoubtedly due to the construction of the 
maze. The distances were long, the pattern simple; and subjects 
soon realized when they were retracing. Moreover, it was possible 
for many cul-de-sac errors to be made without involving any re- 
tracings. Subjects showed a tendency to continue moving in the 
same direction until further progress was blocked. This procedure 
led them into blind alleys 6, 8, and 10 (Figure I), which were 


16 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


almost invariably the last to be eliminated. Since the retracing er- 
rors were more rapidly reduced to a minimum in the normal curve, 
the initial uncontrolled trials of the guided groups necessarily rep- 
resent a greater proportional increase with respect to this type of 
error than with respect to cul-de-sac errors. 

We may conclude this section by the following summary. The 
eroup given two initial controls is the only one which attained a | 
greater degree of mastery over the problem during its guided 
trials than the normal group during the same number of unguided 
trials. This fact is indicated by a smaller number of total trials, 
entrance upon the uncontrolled trials at a more advanced stage of 
the learning, and a consistently lower error record throughout the 
remainder of the learning as compared with the normal group. 

III. The remaining question to be considered, namely: ‘““What 
is the relative effectiveness of small versus large amounts of initial 
guidance?” requires only a brief summary and explanation, since 
it was treated in both the preceding discussions. 

With respect to the number of uncontrolled trials, the effect of 
varying amounts of guidance was quite irregular; but with re- 
spect to the errors made in those trials, there was an indication 
that the effectiveness varied directly with the amount. On the other 
hand, where the total trials were compared, there was a marked 
tendency for the effectiveness of the control to vary inversely with 
the amount given. In addition, from the study of the errors by 
means of the graphical and tabular data, it was evident that the 
group with the fewest controls was the only one which was su- 
perior to the normal group in the period succeeding the guidance. 
The group with the largest number of controls was the most in- 
ferior in this respect. We may conclude, therefore, that within 
the limited number of controls investigated in the initial position, 
the efficacy of manual guidance tends to vary inversely with the 
amount given, the maximum effectiveness being produced by the 
minimum amount of guidance. 

These tendencies are probably to be accounted for as follows: | 
The guidance was instrumental in developing, within a few trials, 
an ideational knowledge of the correct pathway as a whole. This 
impression was comparatively vivid and clear-cut, since it was un- 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 17 


complicated by errors, whereas the impression derived through 
self-directed activity during the same number of trials, was neces- 
sarily vague and confused, due to the occurrence of numerous 
cul-de-sac and retracing errors. Because of the large dimensions 
of the maze, the simplicity of the pattern, and the fact that bold 
sweeping movement were required, the utmost benefit could be de- 
rived from the control within two guided trials. 

Greater amounts of guidance given initially not only imparted 
no additional benefit, but even were productive of detrimental con- 
sequences. These results are probably to be explained by certain 
habits and attitudes engendered in the subjects during the guid- 
ance, which were not conducive to the most efficient learning. For 
example, some subjects, because they were prevented from taking 
an aggressive part in the learning, lapsed into a passive attitude 
of dependence upon the experimenter, as contrasted with the act- 
ive, self-reliant attitude which prevailed during undirected learn- 
ing. When thrown upon their own resources in the trials subse- 
quent to the guidance, therefore, these individuals, although they 
made fewer errors, nevertheless required as many or more trials 
than they would have otherwise, to complete the mastery of the 
maze. Moreover, inasmuch as the movements tended to become 
stereotyped and monotonous with repeated controls, and since 
none of the difficulties were experienced, other subjects grew con- 
vinced of the ease with which the problem could be mastered, and 
developed an attitude of over self-confidence. This also affected 
the subsequent period of the learning unfavorably. Finally, it is 
probable that the estimations of distances acquired passively 
through guidance, did not always coincide with those found nec- 
essary by later active explorations, and thus a confusing element 
was introduced through the control. 


GHA PERATT 


Tue EFFECT OF VARYING THE AMOUNT AND POSITION OF 
INTERPOLATED GUIDANCE 


The preceding chapter presented evidence concerning the ef- 
fectiveness of varying amounts of initial guidance in maze learn- 
ing. The present chapter is concerned with an investigation of the 
effectiveness of varying amounts of this control interpolated at 
some intermediate position in the learning. 

Inasmuch as two controls had proved to be the optimum 
amount of guidance introduced initially, we wished to determine 
the effect of that same amount inserted at various stages in the 
learning. In addition, we wished to ascertain whether a larger 
amount——e.g., four guided trials, similarly introduced—would be 
more or less efficacious. Accordingly, the influence of these two 
amounts of guidance, each interpolated at various positions within 
the first twelve trials, was investigated experimentally. 

The procedure was as follows: One group began to learn the 
maze according to the normal, undirected, trial and error method, 
but at the close of the second trial, the experimenter said to each 
subject: “For the next two trials, I shall take hold of the base of 
the stylus and guide your hand over the true pathway. You attend 
as closely as possible and get all the help you can.”’ The subject’s 
hand was then guided over the correct pathway for two consecu- 
tive trials. Subsequently each individual completed the mastery of 
the maze unaided. This group is referred to as A 3-4, since guid- 
ance was given during the third and fourth trials. Similarly, an- 
other group which commenced the learning in the normal manner 
was given guidance during the seventh and eighth trials (group 
A 7-8); and a third during the eleventh and twelfth trials (group 
A 11-12). Both groups then completed the learning without fur- 
ther aid. 

The effect of four interpolated controls was tested in only two 
groups. In one, the guidance was introduced from the fifth to the 

18 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING Ig 


eighth trials inclusive (group A 5-8); and in the other, from the 
ninth to the twelfth trials inclusive (group A 9-12). 

Discussion of these results may be divided into four sections, 
concerned respectively with the following questions: I. “Was in- 
terpolated guidance effective as a control, i.e., did the subjects ac- 
tually learn the maze in part during the guided trials?” II. “Were 
guided trials interpolated in the learning more or less efficacious 
than an equal number of corresponding unguided trials?” III. 
“What amount and position of interpolated guidance was pro- 
ductive of maximal effectiveness?” IV. “Was a given amount of 
interpolated guidance more or less efficacious than the same 
amount of initial guidance?” 

I. The first question may be answered by an analysis of the 
comparative data presented in Tables V and VI. In Table V ap- 
pears the average number of unguided trials required by each 
group to learn the maze, together with the average error records 
and the percentages of saving and loss due to guidance. 











TABLE V 
Uncontrolled Trials and Errors in the Guided and Normal Groups 

Uncon- Errors Pctg. of Saving and Loss 
Group gts (oe ak wa 2 ear eR Tg aT els oy eRe, GREEN EE PUELATIS ET MOUSE BS CEA 

Trials Retracings | Cul-de-sacs | Trials Retracings|Cul-de-sacs 
ean 26.6) = 28.0 74 Te 25.3)120.4 4 45.3 ae 3 e. 
ANS Eoeetol et te: 3° Til 04:00, 2FTIF 0010) i445. |* “AT 12 17 
ADE pis e208 b=) 7.2) 48.0) 37.01007.5 5.05.6:| 27, 35 19 
aeroe22 s04=) $13) “04,0 = 34. 0|1OS.6 202.7, 23 13 10 
AO-12} 246 + 4.4| 86.7 = 30.1/121.3 + 39.8 15 —I7 — iI 
Aiigemt2 le 2orr 8:2) 113-3) s20T, 1100.5 ==. 34:5 2 —53 — 33 

* 


The average errors per unguided trial for the various groups 
are presented in the second and third columns of Table VI. These 
were computed from the data of Table V. In addition the per- 
centages of saving and loss with respect to both types of error are 
supplied by columns 4 and 5. 

In these data the following tendencies are manifested: 

1. Guidance interpolated at various positions in the learning ex- 
ercises a beneficial effect upon total trials and errors. During the 


20 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


TABLE VI 
Average Errors per Unguided Trial in the Guided and Normal Groups 


Average Errors per Trial Percentages of Saving and ‘Loss 





Group 
Retracings Cul-de-sacs Retracings Cul-de-sacs 

Aino 2.57 4.18 

A'3- 4 3.79 5.82 —48 —39 
A 5-8 2.30 4.67 II —I0 
A 7- 8 2.90 4.88 —I13 ——7, 
A 9-12 3.52 4.03 —37 —18 
A II -12 4.03 5.71 —57 —37 


guidance all groups completed a portion of the learning, the spe- 
cific amounts being represented by the percentages of gain relative 
to the normal group. Thus group A 3-4 saved 41% in trials, and 
12% and 17% in retracing and cul-de-sac errors respectively. Ex- 
ceptions to this tendency are found in the average error records of 
two groups. When the control was inserted during the third four 
trials, it produced increased error records relative to the normal 
group. 

2. There is a tendency for the effectiveness of the guidance, as 
measured by total trials and errors, to vary with position. The 
beneficial influence of the control decreases in proportion to the 
distance from the beginning at which it is introduced. Thus the 
largest savings in trials are made by the group given the earliest 
interpolated guidance (group A 3-4); smaller savings by those 
groups guided within the next series of trials (groups A 5-8 and 
A 7-8); and the least savings by those groups given guidance 
during the succeeding series of trials (groups A 9-12 and A 
11-12). The tendency is not so apparent with respect to average 
errors, although those groups in the later stages of whose learning 
the guidance was introduced, exhibit excessive amounts of error. 

3. Guidance does not exercise the same degree of effect upon 
both trials and errors. So far as savings are concerned, with but 
one exception (group A 5-8) and for one type of error, the guid-— 
ance exercised a greater effect upon trials than upon errors. This is 
the explanation for the increased average errors per trial in the 
controlled groups, as shown in Table VI. Obviously, division of 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 21 


the total errors by decreased numbers of trials will produce in- 
creased error scores. 

4. Guidance produces a decrease in variability with respect to 
trials, and an increase in variability with respect to errors save for 
a few exceptions. 

II. We shall next consider the relative effectiveness of guided 
trials, introduced at various stages in the learning, as compared 
with the corresponding unguided trials. Did the subjects attain a 
greater degree of mastery over the problem from the control than 
they would have by their self-directed activity? If so, this fact 
should be indicated by (1) fewer total trials, and (2) decreased 
error records throughout the remainder of the learning. 

1. The first criterion may be discussed in connection with the 
data of Table VII. The total trials for each group are presented, 
and the records for the controlled groups are expressed in per- 
centages of saving and loss with respect to the normal record. 

It is evident that all groups save one were superior in total trials 
to the normal group. The group given two interpolated controls 
during the third and fourth trials was enabled to complete the 
learning in two-thirds the number of trials required by the un- 
guided group. Groups A 7-8 and A 5-8, given two and four con- 
trols respectively, during the second four trials, saved approxi- 
mately one-seventh of the trials required by the normal group. 


TABLE VII 
Total Trials in the Guided and Normal Groups 
Percentages 
Group Total Trials Oo 
Saving and Loss 

- - Oo 28.8 ne 
3- 4 19.1 34 
A 5-8 24.9 14 
A 7- 8 24.3 16 
A 9-12 28.6 I 
AIlI-12 30.1 5) 


Those groups whose guidance was inserted in the third four trials 
required practically the same number of trials to master the maze 


22 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


as the normal group. Again the tendency is noticeable for the ef- 
fectiveness of the guidance to vary with position. Guided trials, 
therefore, are more effective, with but one exception, than un- 
guided trials. 

2. The second criterion of the efficacy of the guidance is the 
maintenance of reduced error records throughout the remainder 
of the learning. We may make two comparisons between the con- 
trolled and the normal groups with respect to the error scores, 
the first based upon those made in the five trials immediately fol- 
lowing the guidance, and the second based upon those made in 
the total trials subsequent to the guidance. 

Table VIII presents the data for the first comparison. Columns 
2 and 3 present the average retracings and cul-de-sac errors made 
by group A -o during the separate series of five trials each, speci- 


TABLE VIII 


Errors for Five Trials Succeeding Guidance in Controlled Groups Versus 
Corresponding Errors in the Normal Group 





Errors Errors 
Group oe ea 
A-o Retrac- | Cul-de- Group Retrac- Cul-de- 
ings sacs ings 4" Sacs 
Trials 5-9 4.5 15.1 A’ 3- 4 3.7 12.5 

‘a 9-13 2.9 10.9 A 7-8 10.7[2.3]} 17.6[7.9] 
zs 13-17 21 7.2 A Il - 12 ai 8.1 
" 9-13 2.9 10.9 A 5- 8 3.6 8.7 
4 13-17 al WP A Q-I2 1.4 7.5 





fied in column 1. The errors made by the controlled groups in the 
corresponding trials, which are in every case those trials immedi- 
ately following the guidance, appear in column 5 and 6. 

In Table IX the error records made by each controlled group 
during the entire period of the learning subsequent to the guidance 
are compared with those of the normal group for the correspond- 
ing trials. Columns 2 and 3 represent the number of retracing and 
cul-de-sac errors made in group A -o after a given number of ° 
trials which are designated in column 1. Columns 5 and 6 present 
the errors made by the controlled groups in the corresponding 
period. The figures in the last two columns are the percentages of 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 23 


TABLE IX 


Errors of the Controlled Groups for the Entire Period Succeding Guidance 
Versus Corresponding Errors of the Normal Group 





Errors Errors Pctg. of Sav’g and Loss 
Group ae ae aa ‘Wi *5 aes crak SLL 

A-o Retrac-| Cul-de-| Group | Retrac-|Cul-de-| Retrac- Cul-de- 
ings sacs ings sacs ings sacs 
After 4 trials} 10.5 AY.OF |S) 3\- 4" 7:9 22.8 25 44 
Ape Bie is: 6.6 28.0 |A 7- 8 13.9 30.9 eee —I0 
ES 4.3 19.55 | fu li= 12| etT6 23.7 —I70 —22 
bp hh ai 6.6 FOO ATS = OL ere 22.2 — 9 21 
RED F255 4.3 19.5 |A 9-12) 5.6 | 188 — 30 4 


saving and loss in errors for the controlled groups relative to the 
normal group. 

In these comparative data the following features are to be noted. 

~ 1. With respect to the effects of the control in the period imme- 
diately following, we find that one group alone began the subse- 
quent learning at a more advanced stage of error elimination than 
did the normal group. Group A 3-4 made only 3.7 retracings and 
12.5 cul-de-sac errors during the fifth to ninth trials which suc- 
ceeded its guidance, whereas the normal group made 4.5 and 15.1 
respectively. 

Group A 7-8 apparently entered upon its subsequent learning 
at a less advanced stage. The largely increased error scores, how- 
ever, are caused solely by one poor record. This subject made 44 
retracing errors and 71 cul-de-sac errors in the ninth trial, when 
the next highest scores were 1 and 4 errors respectively; and he 
maintained this high record for several trials. The figures in brack- 
ets, therefore, indicate the average errors computed for the 14 re- 
maining subjects of the group. The majority of individuals of this 
group also resumed the learning at a more advanced stage than 
did the normal group. 

Group A 11-12 began the learning subsequent to the guidance 
at a less advanced stage with respect to both types of error, as also 
did group A 5-8 with respect to retracings, and A 9-12 with re- 
spect to cul-de-sac errors. 

2. In regard to the influence of the control upon the entire re- 
maining period of the learning, we find again that only one group 


24 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


(A 3-4) maintained a consistently lower level subsequent to the 
guidance than that of the normal group. 

Groups A 5-8 and A 9-12 exhibit fewer cul-de-sac errors during 
the remainder of the learning, and hence maintained a slightly 
lower level in this respect. 

Groups A 7-8 and A 11-12 required increased amounts of error 
throughout the subsequent learning. 

3. The control exercises a more beneficial effect upon cul-de-sac 
errors than upon retracing errors during the total period subse- 
quent to the guidance. The greatest savings and the least losses 
are found in the case of the former type of error. 

4. There is in the data of Table IX the same tendency previous- 
ly noted, for the guidance to exert less beneficial influence upon 
error elimination in proportion to the distance from the beginning 
at which it is introduced. Thus two controls interpolated very early 
in the learning are decidedly effective; two given during the sev- 
enth and eighth trials are detrimental; but two controls inserted at 
the eleventh and twelfth trials are even more detrimental. The 
same tendency is evident in the case of four controls in the two dif- 
ferent positions. : 

5. The effectiveness of the guidance, as indicated by the error 
elimination throughout the remainder of the learning varies di- 
rectly with the amount given. Four interpolated controls are pro- 
ductive of decreased cul-de-sac errors and smaller increases in re- 
tracings than are two controls in the corresponding stages of the 
learning. 

That the differences between these groups are due largely to 
the effects of the guidance and not to chance or group differences 
in ability, has been assumed in the preceding discussions. The 
validity of this assumption may be established by a comparison be- 
tween the initial efforts of the various groups. Since each con- 
trolled group began learning the maze according to the normal, un- 
directed, trial and error method, the records of all trials preced- _ 
ing the guidance are comparable to those of the normal group. 
These data are given in Table X. 

Inspection of this table reveals the close correspondence exist- 
ing between groups at the outset. For example group A 9-12 made 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 25 


TABLE X 


Errors in the Initial Trials of Groups Given Interpolated Guidance Versus the 
Corresponding Errors of the Normal Group 





Errors Errors 
Group StS ete eee tee ae 
A-o Retrac- Cul-de- Group Retrac- Cul-de- 

ings sacs ings sacs 
rialsnet ee 27.8 32.8 A 3-4 28.5 38.4 
1- 6 10.9 14.5 A 7-8 8.4 13.0 
4 I-10 6.9 0.7 A II - 12 10.2 13.6 
~ I- 4 15.9 19.9 A 5- 8 yay 20.2 
3 1- 8 8.4 11.6 A 9-12 9.5 11.9 


9.5 retracings and 11.9 cul-de-sac errors during the first eight 
trials, while the normal group made 8.4 and 11.6 respectively. Per- 
haps the greatest disparity occurs between group A 3-4 and the 
normal group. The former made 38.4 cul-de-sac errors during the 
first two trials, and the latter 32.8. The advantage, however, lies 
wholly with the normal group, yet in this case the control was ex- 
tremely effective. Finally, there is no correlation evident between 
the initial error records of the various groups and the effectiveness 


of the guidance in the subsequent period of the learning. 


ERRORS ERRORS 
xe) so 


40 40 





30 30 
20 20 
40 40 
CMU SM ot 7a: Lto Uesrmaen, as . 
TRIALS TRIALS 
Ficure IIT 
Cul-de-sac Errors Retracing Errors 
Group A -o —— Group A -o —— 


Group A3-4.... Group A3-4.... 


26 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


The learning curves for all the controlled groups illustrate the 
facts which have been discussed in connection with the tabular 
data, but since the latter constitute a more condensed form of pre- 
sentation, they have been employed exclusively. One set of curves, 
however, may be included—that of group A 3-4 in Figure III. 
The large initial error scores, and the reduced amount of errors 
throughout the period of the learning subsequent to the guidance, © 
are the significant features. | 

III. The third question to be considered, namely: “What 
amount and position of interpolated guidance is productive of 
maximum effectiveness ?”’ has been dealt with under several aspects 
in the preceding sections, but requires a brief résume. 

With respect to the number of uncontrolled trials, two controls 
introduced during the third and fourth trials are most effective; 
four and two controls, in decreasing order, given during the sec- 
ond four trials, are somewhat less so; while four and two controls 
during the third four trials are least effective. A similar tendency 
appears in the error records, but in this case guidance interpolated 
late in the learning actually exercises a deleterious influence. 

With respect to the total trials, the same generalization remains 
true, but the order in effectiveness of the two amounts of guidance 
introduced during the second four trials is reversed. In the case 
of average errors per trial succeeding the guidance, four controls 
are more effective in both positions than two in the corresponding 
stages of the learning. 

The effectiveness of the guidance appears, therefore, to be a 
function of both position and amount. Within the limited number 
of positions investigated, there is a marked tendency for the ef- 
fectiveness of the guidance to increase in proportion to its prox- 
imity to the initial attempts. Evidence for this fact is furnished - 
by total trials and errors, as well as average errors per trial. 

Within the limited number of controls investigated, the larger 
amount is more effective in each position according to the criteria 
of uncontrolled trials, total errors and average errors per trial in 
subsequent learning. According to the criterion of total trials, the 
averages are not consistently in favor of either amount, but the 
medians, as illustrated in Figure IV, indicate that the smaller 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 27 


TRIALS 
FO, 





£-/6 


£2 








Ff 2] 3 ol Ss 6 7 Ss 3 4/0 4/ 4/2 43 (Za r<y 1& 
GUIDED TRIALS 
Ficure IV 


Median Number of Total Trials Required by Guided Groups (Maze A) 
amount is more effective in each position. These features, how- 


ever, are probably a function not wholly of amount, but partially, 
at least, of position. For example, the four controls of group A 5-8 


28 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


necessarily include guided trials (the fifth and sixth), which pre- 
cede the controls given group A 7-8. 

IV. The final section of this chapter is concerned with the rela- 
tive effectiveness of interpolated guidance as contrasted with the 
same and larger amounts of initial guidance. To facilitate com- 
parison, the records of all groups are reproduced in Table XI. 
Here the controlled, uncontrolled, and the total trials are presented, 
together with the average retracings and cul-de-sac errors. In ad- 
dition, the total trial records and the total error records of these 
groups are represented graphically and are utilized to supplene 
the tabular data. 


TABLE XI 


Trials and Errors in the Guided and Normal Groups 


Trials Errors 





Group cneg iC SAIC SEER PPR DLOLGS A SuTree 
Controlled | Uncontrolled! Total Retracings | Cul-de-sacs 











Ae =O (6) 28.8 28.8 74.1 120.4 
Ay I= 2 2 21.2 23.2 14.4 39.0 
A I- 4 4 25.1 20.1 PRM 48.9 
ART i=ee 8 10.5 27.5 28.1 41.7 
A 1-12 12 17.9 29.9 10.9 eh aa 
A 1-16 16 25.1 41.1 10.1 ie 
A 3-4 p> 17.1 19.1 64.9 99.6 
A 7- 8 2 22.3 24.3 64.6 - 108.8 
A IlI-12 2 28.1 30.1 113.3 160.5 
A 5- 8 4 20.9 24.9 48.0 97.5 
A 9-12 4 24.6 28.6 86.7 121.3 


Averages have been employed exclusively heretofore, but since 
the medians portray smoother tendencies, while indicating the 
same general conclusions, they are utilized to depict the total trials 
in Figure IV. The scale along the ordinate represents number of 
trials, and distances on the abscissa correspond to specific amounts 
and positions of guidance. For example, the line of twelve units, 
connecting the first and the twelfth guided trials, refers to group 
A I-12, and its position indicates that this group required 30 trials 
to master the maze. The normal group, which required 28 trials, 
is represented by the point at zero guided trials. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 29 


The combined error records of all groups, computed by adding 
the retracing and cul-de-sac errors given in columns 5 and 6 of 
Table XI are represented graphically in Figure V. Since the num- 
bers along the abscissa represent guided trials, each line designates 
one group by specifying the amount and position of the guidance 
given. Thus the line two units long, connecting the third and 
fourth guided trials, refers to group A 3-4. The figures above each 
line represent the number of errors made by that group; A 3-4, for 
example, making 164.5 errors. 








43.2 
36.4. 
69.8 
NP Hd ant ae Se 
53.4 164.5 L734, 223.8 





3 4 Ss 6 7 3 9 40 M/ /2 43 14 15 46 
GUIDED TRIALS 


FicuRE V E 
Combined Average Error Records of Guided Groups (Maze A) 


The following are the outstanding features in both the tabular 
and graphical presentations of the total trials. 

1. As to the influence of the amount of guidance, it is evident 
that, for a given position, the smaller the number of guided trials, 
the more beneficial are the results. Thus if the initial learning be 
divided into three stages of four trials each, two controls are more 
effective than four in each stage; four controls in either of the first 
two stages are more effective than eight, and in the third stage 
more effective than twelve. Finally, eight initial controls are more 
effective than twelve, and twelve than sixteen. 


30 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


2. The influence of position, when the amount is kept constant, 
is as follows: Guidance introduced at an early stage in the learning 
exerts a more beneficial influence than when introduced initially, 
but when it is interpolated at an advanced stage in the learning, 
there is a decrease in beneficial consequences. Thus the maximum 
effectiveness from two controls is attained by their introduction in | 
the third and fourth trials, and from four controls, by these inter- 
polation during the fifth to eighth trials. 

3. Two, four, and eight controls inserted at any position in the 
first eight trials of the learning are more effective than an equal 
number of corresponding uncontrolled trials; two and four con- 
trols introduced during the third four trials, and twelve initial 
controls are negligible or slightly detrimental in their effect; while 
sixteen initial controls are positively detrimental, as compared 
with the same number of corresponding uncontrolled trials. 

According to the comparative data for the error records given 
in Table XI and Figure V, the following tendencies are apparent: 

1. As to the influence of amount in a given position, we find 
that, with but two exceptions (groups A 1-2 and A 1-12) the ef- 
fectiveness of the guidance upon error elimination varies directly 
with the number of guided trials given. Thus twelve controls are 
more effective than eight, and eight are more effective than four, 
in the initial positions. Also, four controls are more effective than 
two when introduced in the corresponding stages of the learning. 
Again the error record for group A 1-2 is an exception. 

2. As to the influence of position, a uniform tendency is ap- 
parent for each of the two amounts investigated. The effectiveness 
varies directly with proximity to the initial trials. Thus the error 
record of group A 1-2 is less than that of group A 3-4; that of the 
latter is less than the error record for group A 7-8, which in turn 
is less than that of group A II-I2. 

3. Since the combined errors for the normal group, which are 
not represented in Figure V, total 194.5, it is evident that each 
number and position of guided trials—save two and four, intro- 
duced during the third four trials—are more effective upon errors 
than the same number of corresponding unguided trials. 

The above factual conclusions derived from our comparative 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 31 


data can be explained by the supposition that guidance exerts 
both a favorable and a detrimental influence, the relative propor- 
tion of the two varying with position and amount. 

The advantageous effects may be summarized in the following 
statements: Presumably, guidance operates to impart, within a 
few trials, a comparatively clear impression of the true pathway as 
a whole, entirely free from errors. Less benefit is derived when it 
is introduced initially than when it is inserted after a few prelim- 
inary undirected trials. The subjects have then acquired a general 
knowledge of the maze, but the conception of the correct route to 
be followed is necessarily vague and indefinite, due to the occur- 
rence of complicating erroneous movements. This confused im- 
pression is clarified by the guidance, which, by deleting all errors, 
throws the true pathway into bold relief, and the subjects’ inter- 
pretation is facilitated by the previously acquired apperceptive 
background. Obviously, when the guidance is introduced during 
later and later stages of the learning, when the knowledge of the 
true pathway has already been acquired, the beneficial results be- 
come decreasingly less. 

Furthermore, when the subjects begin the learning by the trial 
and error method, there is a prevailing tendency for certain errors 
to become fixed and established as integral parts of the act learned. 
The guidance exerts a favorable influence insofar as it disrupts 
this process of error fixation. The greater the amount, and the 
earlier the introduction of the guidance, the more successfully will 
it overcome this habit; and conversely, the smaller the amount, and 
the later the introduction, the less will be the counteracting effect. 

Moreover, it is probable, on a priori grounds, that a greater num- 
ber of controls are necessary to procure the maximum effectiveness 
in the case of an early introduction, where there is much to be 
learned, than in the case of a later introduction. Consequently we 
should expect to secure the utmost benefit from the tuition by a 
larger number of guided trials in the early stages and by a decreas- 
ing number in the later stages. Doubtless the same advantage 
would have accrued from one guided trial introduced at an inter- 
mediate stage of the learning, as from two guided trials introduced 
at an earlier stage. 


32 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


Guidance also exerts a detrimental effect, the degree of which 
varies with position and amount. It disrupts helpful associative 
connections formed between sensory cues in the maze and specific 
modes of reaction. Early in the mastery of the maze, subjects de- 
veloped such habits as pressing the stylus against one side of a 
groove to escape a cul-de-sac, feeling for the absence of a resist- 
ing wall to indicate another, or counting openings in order to avoid. 
a third. The experimenter’s manipulation of the stylus necessarily 
did not duplicate the subject’s previous types of activity, and the 
guidance therefore exercised a deleterious influence. Presumably 
this effect will vary directly with the amount of guidance. Also, 
the later the introduction of the tuition, the more fixed will be the 
former system of habits, and the less disadvantageous will be the 
consequences. The earlier the interpolation and the larger the 
amount, the greater will be the disruptive effect. 

In addition to breaking old habits, guidance may establish new 
habits, and mental and motor attitudes toward the problem, which 
will carry over and affect the subsequent learning detrimentally. 
For example, it is probable that the estimations of distances, 
which are acquired during tuition, will not coincide with those 
subsequently found necessary in self-directed activity. Also the 
control may generate attitudes of over self-confidence or of de- 
pendence upon the experimenter, either of which will be unfavor- 
able to the learning. So far as this influence is concerned, the 
greater the amount of guidance, the greater the deleterious effect. 
Doubtless it varies with position also, the detrimental conse- 
quences decreasing according as the control is interpolated later 
and later in the learning. 

The fact that guidance exerted a different effect upon trials and 
errors, is probably to be accounted for in the following manner: 
The mere physical fact of error prevention operates to reduce 
errors decidedly more than trials. The greater the amount of 
guidance and the earlier the introduction, the more efficacious will 
be the control in eliminating errors. Conversely, the smaller the 
amount and the later the introduction, the less will be the bene- 
ficial consequences in this respect. 

Furthermore, it is probable that the advantageous and disad- 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 33 


vantageous aspects of the guidance, previously enumerated, affect 
one criterion of mastery more than the other. For example, when 
the clear conception of the true pathway was imparted by the 
guidance after certain errors had become established as integral 
parts of the reaction, a conflict ensued in the subsequent trials. 
Subjects apparently had correct conceptions, because, frequently, 
in the very act of traversing a cul-de-sac, an individual would real- 
ize suddenly that an error was being made and return immediately 
to the true pathway. Presumably the habitual mode of reaction 
was asserting itself despite the knowledge of the correct reaction. 
Such a performance increased the error records considerably, but 
after a certain number of repetitions, the subjects were enabled 
successfully to anticipate the cul-de-sacs ; the knowledge of the true 
pathway predominated; and as a result the total trials were de- 
cidedly reduced. 

On the other hand, certain habits acquired during the period of 
the guidance probably exerted a more detrimental effect upon trials 
than upon error records. For example, the attitude of over self- 
confidence, which frequently appeared after large amounts of 
initial guidance had been given, was not conducive to cautious ex- 
plorations in the subsequent trials. Because of their familiarity 
with the true pathway and their ignorance of all error possibilities, 
so simple did the subjects conceive the problem to be, and so posi- 
tive were they of their ability to make a perfect record, that they 
proceeded thoughtlessly and without heed, trial after trial. Com- 
paratively few errors were made, but large numbers of trials were 
required before the maze was mastered. 


CHAPTER IV 


THe Errect oF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON THE LEARNING 
oF Maze B 


The influence of initial and interpolated guidance upon the © 
learning of one maze was determined in the preceding chapters. 
Within the limits of the investigation, minimum amounts of con- 
trol, introduced very early in the learning, were productive of 
maximal effectiveness. The question then arises as to whether 
these results are specific and limited only to one maze, or whether 
they are applicable to mazes in general. 

For the investigation of this problem, a second maze was util- 
ized, which is designated maze B. From the representation of its 
pattern in Figure I, and the description of its structure in Chapter 
I, it is apparent that, with respect to size, length and number of sec- 
tions, direction of successive movements and kind of stylus em-_ 
ployed, this maze constitutes a materially different problem from ° 
that of maze A. 

Six groups of fifteen subjects each were employed, and certain 
of the previous conditions of the learning were duplicated. One 
group mastered the maze according to the free, undirected, trial 
and error method, and consequently is referred to as B -o. Three 
groups were given initial guidance. One was controlled the first 
four trials and is designated B 1-4; another was controlled the 
first eight trials (B 1-8); and a third, the first twelve trials 
(B 1-12). Two groups were given interpolated guidance. Four 
controls were introduced during the fifth to eighth trials in one 
group (B 5-8); and during the ninth to twelfth trials in another 
group (B 9-12). Subsequent to the guidance all controlled groups 
completed the mastery of the maze unaided. : 

Discussion of the results of these experiments will be limited to 
the aspects involved in the following three questions: I “‘What 
were the effects of varying amounts and positions of guidance up- 
on the learning of maze B?” II. “What were the differences in 


34 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 35 


the results obtained from maze B as compared with the results 
obtained from maze A?” III. “What are the explanations for 
these differences in results in the two mazes?” 

I. The first question may be answered by an analysis of the 
comparative data, presented in both tabular and graphical form. 
In Table XII appear the controlled, uncontrolled, and total trials 
required by all groups, together with the total errors. In addition, 
the total trials and the total errors are represented in Figures VI 
and VII respectively. 

In Figure VI each line refers to a particular group, by designat- 
ing the amount and position of its guidance. The location of each 
line with reference to the ordinate indicates the total trials required 
by that group. Thus group B 1-12 required 22.5 trials. The normal 
group is represented by the point at zero guided trials, the position 


of which indicates that it required 29.2 trials. 


TRIALS 
20 


2¢ 


22 





16 





/ va 
GUIDED TRIALS 


Ficure VI 
Average Number of Total Trials Required by Guided Groups (Maze B) 


36 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


TABLE XII 
Trials and Errors in the Guided and Normal Groups 




















Trials Errors 

Group aE ee 

Controlled | Uncontrolled| Total Retracings | Cul-de-sacs 
B - oO o 20.2 = 11.6| 202 362.8 + 80.5|/73.6 = 44.7 
Bars-ar4 4 16:3) 251013 20.3 113.0: (08.4) 20:5 "1S 
Bataan 8 gy Ges as 16.3 17.9 + 14.5|94:0.--enaes 
BI -12 12 TO:Shes 407 22.5 40:4 937-7 1 See 
Bs5- 8 4 140: ne 18.9 246.3 + 120.3]25.7 = 15.0 
B 9 - 12 4 17 ag 21.6 304.7 + I01.5| 48.0 + 25.2 


In Figure VII, the total errors, computed by combining the rec- 
ords for retracing and cul-de-sac errors, given in columns 5 and 
6 of Table XII, are presented graphically. Each line, as before, in- 
dicates by its length and position, one particular group, whose 
error score is specified by the figures above it. Thus group B 1-4, 
represented by the line four units long, extending from the first 
to the fourth guided trials, has a total error record of 134.4. 


a eS ee ee ee 


/ oes 4 s 6 ? 8 9) 10 Ws 42 
GUIDED TRIALS . 


Ficure VII 
Combined Average Error Records of Guided Groups (Maze B) 


The following conclusions are based upon the tabular and 
graphical presentations of the total trials: 

1. Each amount and position of controlled trials introduced in 
the learning of this maze proved more effective than an equal num- 
ber of corresponding uncontrolled trials. All groups attained a 


large degree of mastery over the problem during the period of 
the guidance. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 37 


2. The effectiveness of the guidance, for a given position, 
varies with amount. It increases in proportion to the number of 
controls given up to a certain point, beyond which additional 
amounts produce less beneficial results. Thus four controls, inter- 
polated in the first, second, or third four trials, are less effective 
than eight, but more effective than twelve controls, initially intro- 
duced. 

3. The effectiveness of the guidance, where the amount is kept 
constant, varies with position. Guidance interpolated at an early 
stage in the learning exerts a more beneficial influence than when 
introduced initially, but when it is interpolated at an advanced 
stage in the learning, there is a decrease in beneficial consequences. 
Thus the maximum effectiveness from four controls is attained 
when they are inserted during the fifth to eighth trials; when in- 
troduced initially, or interpolated during the ninth to twelfth trials, 
their value becomes decreasingly less. 

The following are the outstanding features with respect to the 
error records given in Table XII and Figure VII. 

1. Each number and position of guided trials introduced in the 
learning of maze B proved more effective than the same number 
of corresponding unguided trials. According to the criterion of 
error elimination, each controlled group attained a considerable 
degree of mastery over the problem during the period of the guid- 
ance. 

2. As to the influence of amount in the initial position, the ten- 
dency is for the effectiveness of the guidance upon errors to in- 
crease proportionately with the number of controls given up to a 
certain point, and to decrease with larger numbers. Thus group 
B 1-4 exhibits decidedly increased error scores relative to group 
B 1-8, while the error record of the latter is reduced as compared 
with that of group B 1-12. It is impossible to judge whether this 
tendency would have remained constant if a larger number of 
groups had been employed, or whether the record for group B 1-12 
is an exception, and the effectiveness of the guidance upon errors 
in maze B varies directly with amount, as was the tendency indi- 
cated in maze A. 

3. As to the influence of position, when the amount is kept con- 


38 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


stant, it is obvious that the effectiveness varies directly with prox- 
imity to the initial trials. Thus the error record for group B 1-4 is 
less than that for group B 5-8, which in turn is less than that for 
group B 9-12. 

4. The guidance was more effective upon error elimination than 
upon trial reduction. From the percentages of saving which are 
specified in Table XIV, it is evident that the control produced ap- 
proximately twice as much benefit in errors as in trials among the 
initially guided groups. The savings in retracing errors for the 
groups given interpolated guidance, however, represent slight ex- 
ceptions to this tendency. 

II. The second question is concerned with the differences in re- 
sults obtained from the two mazes. To be sure, a fairly close cor- 
respondence in certain features is revealed by a comparison of the 
records. For example, the guidance was effective as a control upon 
the learning in maze B, beneficial result accruing from its intro- 
duction in every case. Moreover, the guidance in both mazes exer- 
cised a different degree of effect upon trials and errors. The effect 
of position upon both trial and error records, also, was consistently 
the same in maze B as it was in maze A. On the other hand, there 
are certain outstanding differences in results which may be sum- 
marized as follows: ; 

1. The number and proportion of both types of error differ 
widely in the two mazes. Table XIII contrasts the total retracing 
and cul-de-sac errors required in the learning of each maze by 
groups given the number of controlled trials specified in column rf. 

It is apparent that the cul-de-sac errors exceed the retracing er- 
rors in maze A, the proportion being approximately 2:1; where- 
as, in maze B, the reverse condition is true. The retracing errors 
greatly outnumber the cul-de-sac errors, the proportion being at 
least 4:1. The fact that these proportions remain quite consistent 
in the controlled as well as in the uncontrolled conditions of learn- 
ing, is an indication that the difference is not a matter of guidance, 
but of maze structure. 

2. The guidance produced a greater degree of benefit upon the 
learning of maze B than upon that of maze A. Within the limits 
of the amounts and positions investigated, each series of guided 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 39 











TABLE XIII 
Total Errors Under Similar Conditions of Learning in the Two Mazes 
Maze A Maze B 
Capnliaelited] || ee 
Trials Retracings Cul-de-sacs Retracings Cul-de-sacs 
oO 74.1 120.4 362.8 73.6 
Teo: 23.1 48.9 113.9 20.5 
I- 8 28.1 41.7 17.9 4.9 
I-12 10.9 25.5 40.4 11.5 
5- 8 48.0 97-5 246.3 25.7 
9-12 86.7 121.3 304.7 48.0 








trials was more effective than the corresponding unguided trials in 
maze B, as indicated by both trial and error records. In maze A, 
on the contrary, certain of the same series were either negligible 
or deleterious in their effect, as indicated by the same criteria. 
Table XIV contrasts the percentage of saving and loss in total 
trials and errors, which accrued in the learning of each maze from 
the controls designated in column 1. 


TABLE XIV 


Saving and Loss in Trials and Errors Under Similar Conditions of Learning 
in the Two Mazes 











Percentages of Saving and Loss 
Controlled Maze A Maze B 
Trials 
Retrac- | Cul-de- Retrac- | Cul-de- 

Trials ings sacs Trials ings sacs 
I- 4 st 69 59 31 69 72 
1- 8 5 62 65 44 95 93 
I-12 al, 85 79 23 89 84 
S128 14 35 19 35 32 65 
9 - 12 Tos e177, —I 26 22 35 





Obviously the savings in total trials produced by each number 
and position of controls introduced in maze B are markedly in- 
creased relative to the corresponding savings in maze A. Thus the 
group given four initial controls in maze B completed approxi- 
mately one-third (31%) of the mastery of the maze during the 
period of the guidance. The corresponding group in maze A at- 


40 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


tained practically no mastery over the maze during the guidance 
(—1%). In addition, the largest savings made by any control 
in maze A are 34% and 19% as compared with 44% and 35% in 
maze B. 

The results produced by the guidance upon error elimination 
in maze B are not so dissimilar to the corresponding results in 
maze A. Savings in errors, however, accrue from the interpolation 
of four controls during the ninth to twelfth trials in maze B, as 
compared with losses in maze A; and the savings resulting from 
eight initial controls in maze B are in excess of savings accruing 
from any number or position of controls in maze A. 

3. The influence exerted by varying amounts of guidance in 
the initial position, upon total trials, is somewhat different in the 
two mazes. In maze A, the optimum amount proved to be two 
guided trials, and additional amounts produced less beneficial re- 
sults. In maze B, on the other hand, a small number of guided 
trials was not as beneficial as a larger number—the optimum 
amount proving to be eight—but increased amounts, again, pro- 
duced less favorable results. 

III. The third section is devoted to explanations of the differ- 
ences in results obtained in the two mazes. The hypotheses ad- 
vanced to account for the advantageous and disadvantageous ef- 
fects of the guidance upon the learning of maze A are probably 
applicable to maze B, and the differences are undoubtedly a func- 
tion of the structure and size of the second maze. 

1. The predominance of retracing over cul-de-sac errors in 
maze B, which is the very reversal of conditions in maze A, is 
probably to be accounted for in the following manner: Whereas 
the number of cul-de-sacs is comparable in the two mazes, there 
being I5 in maze A and 12 in maze B, the number of sections 
composing the true pathway in the latter—namely, 35—is more 
than twice that of the former, namely, 16. This fact, taken in con- 
“junction with the decidedly shorter length of the sections in maze 
B, indicates that a more refined unit of measurement was utilized 
in this problem. Obviously a return over the same distance of the 
true pathway involves many more errors in maze B, and partially 
explains the excessive amounts of retracings. In addition, a mode 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 41 


of reaction was exhibited almost invariably in maze B, which 
was of rare occurrence in maze A. After familiarity with cul-de- 
sacs had been acquired, subjects were apt to infer that, whenever 
the stylus encountered the wall of a groove at the end of a sec- 
tion, an error had been committed. As a matter of fact, in the 
majority of cases, what was regarded as a cul-de-sac was in reality 
a section of the true pathway. When progress was prevented in one 
direction, the subjects, instead of persevering and investigating 
other forward directions, would resort to retracing movements. 
Such types of reaction were very persistent, and it was not un- 
common for the entire pathway to be traversed many times during 
a single trial. 

Moreover, a comparatively small number of cul-de-sac errors 
was required in the learning of maze B relative to that required 
in maze A. This is probably due to the fact that, so long as subjects 
moved the stylus in a given direction until they could advance no 
farther, cul-de-sac errors were impossible. In fact, entrance into a 
blind alley involved a deflection from the true pathway before the 
end of the section was reached. Provided straight forward move- 
ments the full length of each unit of the route were maintained, 
there were only two points at which choice was possible, and even 
here, the previous direction of movement determined the correct 
selection. Thus it was that the very structure of the maze provided 
minimum opportunity for cul-de-sac errors. In maze A, on the 
other hand, the same tendency shown by subjects to move the 
stylus in one direction as far as possible, inevitably led them into 
cul-de-sacs, which, it was mentioned before, were the last to be 
eliminated. 

2. Guidance was more effective upon trial reduction and error 
elimination in maze B than it was in maze A. When introduced in 
the latter maze, as has been described above, it imparted an idea- 
tional knowledge of the true pathway which, in some form or 
other, was utilized to direct the subsequent learning. In maze B, 
the same type of benefit presumably accrued from the control, but, 
because of the intricate character of the pattern and the compli- 
cated series of movements involved, it is exceedingly improbable 
that any subject derived through guidance the clear, comprehen- 


42 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


sive impression of the pathway which was acquired in maze A. 
On the other hand, a given amount of guidance wrought a greater 
degree of benefit upon the learning of maze B than upon that of 
maze A, due to the very complexity of the first mentioned prob- 
lem. The more difficult the task to be mastered, the more effica- 
cious the aid. 

In addition to furnishing this ideational knowledge of the maze, | 
the guidance induced the sensori-motor habit of executing, in a 
rhythmical manner, definite and precise movements, each termin- 
ated by contact with the resisting wall of the groove. The control, 
in fact, operated to enforce the natural tendency of each subject 
to continue moving in one direction as far as possible. This mode 
of reaction both prevented cul-de-sac errors, and overcame the in- 
clination to retrace whenever an obstructing wall was encountered. 
Once this principle was grasped, or the habit established, the maze 
could be run perfectly, whereas a knowledge of the correct path- 
way in maze A did not necessarily denote a perfect performance. 
Thus there was in maze B a condensation of that portion of the 
learning which in maze A was characterized by the elimination of 
certain persistent cul-de-sac errors, and the result was a greater 
reduction in the number of trials and errors required to master the 
second maze. 

3. The foregoing statements are probably explanatory, also, of 
the different effects upon total trials and errors obtained from 
varying amounts of guidance in the two mazes. Because of the 
greater complexity of maze B, the utmost benefit from the guid- 
ance could not be derived within a small number of controlled 
trials. Larger amounts were essential both to impart a clarified 
impression of the true pathway, and to establish on a firmer basis 
the sensori-motor types of reaction. After the optimum amount, 
which proved to be eight controlled trials, had been attained, how- 
ever, additional numbers failed to produce as beneficial conse- 
quences, and presumably the detrimental effects of the guidance 
mentioned in the preceding chapter, were becoming manifest. 


CHAPTER V 


’ Tue Errect oF GUIDANCE UPON TRANSFER 


In addition to the main investigation reported in this research, 
a subsidiary experiment in transfer was undertaken. The purpose 
was to discover whether the control introduced in the learning of 
one maze had any effect upon the subsequent learning of a second 
maze. 

We have presented in preceding chapters the results obtained 
from the learning of the two mazes by various groups of subjects 
under certain conditions. For the present experiment, the majority 
of those groups which mastered maze A returned twenty-four 
hours later and learned maze B. In a similar fashion most of the 
groups which had first learned maze B returned the following day 
at the same hour and mastered maze A. The second maze was 
learned in every instance by the normal undirected trial and error 
method. From a comparison of these results with those obtained 
in the mastery of each maze by groups which had had no previous 
experience, we may determine whether the transferred groups 
were at an advantage or a disadvantage because of their former 
maze experience, and whether the controlled groups were superior 
or inferior to the uncontrolled groups in this respect. 

The comparative data may be analyzed in four sections, con- 
cerned respectively with the following questions: I. “What was 
the nature of the transfer in the normal groups?” II. “What were 
the comparative effects of controlled versus uncontrolled condi- 
tions of learning upon transfer?” III. “What was the relative 
effectiveness upon transfer of varying amounts and positions of 
control introduced in the learning of the first maze?” IV. “Does 
the effect of guidance upon transfer have any relationship to its 
effect upon learning?” 

I, The first question may be answered by a comparison of the 
records for the transferred normal groups with those of the nor- 
mal groups which had had no previous maze experience. Thus the 

43 


44 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


results in Maze B for the group which had formerly learned maze 
A unguided, and which is designated B (A-o), are contrasted 
with those of the normal group B; and in a similar manner, the 
results in maze A for the group which had first learned maze B 
unguided, A (B-o), are contrasted with those of the normal 
group A. These comparative data are given in Table XV, to- 
gether with the percentages of saving and loss due to transfer. 


TABLE XV 
Trials and Errors in the Normal and Transferred Unguided Groups 


Errors Perctg. of Saving and Loss 





Group Trials 





Retracings | Cul-de-sacs | Trials | Retracings|Cul-de-sacs 





B 20.2 °11:6) 362.8 = 80.519 73.655 4471) 2. as aS 
B (A-o) | 28.7 + 15.9| 256.1 + 96.6] 65.4 + 30.1 2 29 II 
A 25.81 S07 Aste 25.3) 120 5.3 hee ae Aa 
A (B-0) | 26.8 + 9.0] 95.3 + 20.7/160.2 + 308 7 —29 —33 


+ It 





In addition, the learning curves of these groups are presented in 
Figure VIII. The total errors were utilized, since the same ten- 
dencies were exhibited in both retracings and cul-de-sac errors. 

From these comparative data we may draw the following con- 
clusions: 

1. Notwithstanding the marked differences in size, structure, 
and pattern of the two mazes, the amount of the transfer, though 
small, is positive in character as measured by the criterion of trials. 
A positive transfer in trials obtains also in all the controlled groups 
(see Table XVI). 

2. With respect to errors, a positive transfer is manifested 
when maze B was learned subsequent to maze A, this result being 
duplicated in six out of the eight controlled groups. A negative 
transfer, on the other hand, was obtained when the order of learn- 
ing was reversed. Thus group A (B-o) required an increased 
number of errors to master maze A relative to that of the normal 
group in this maze. The appreciably increased error scores can- 
not be ascribed to exceptional individual records, because the varia- 
bility was small, nor to chance, because the same tendency is ex- 
hibited in two of the three controlled groups. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 45 


FRRORS 


ERRORS 
400 


400 


90 


70 





Jo 


30 






aoc cnc on secre esencs coewneewewnns cae ceesaccses= == 
one 


= 
eocncceess=29e snes 


Ss. 


aoe 


es! 


20 


10 





TRIALS 


TRIALS 


Ficure VIII 





Combined Average Errors Combined Average Errors 
Group B -o — Group A -0 
Group B (A-o).... Group A (B-0).... 


We have illustrated in this case, therefore, a situation in which 
the learning of one maze is productive of a favorable effect upon 
trials, and a detrimental effect upon errors, in the learning of a sec- 
ond maze. Within the writer’s knowledge there are but two in- 


46 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


stances cited in the literature where two criteria indicate a differ- 
ence in the transfer effect. Both occur in maze learning. Webb* 
found two groups of human subjects where a slight negative 
transfer obtained in trials, but he concluded on the basis of the 
positive transfer exhibited in errors and time, and an indiviual 
peculiarity, that these results were, in all probability, due to 
chance. Wiltbank? likewise presents evidence of negative transfer 
in trials for two groups of rats, and in these instances again, the 
transfer was positive as indicated by the criteria of time and er- 
rors. He concluded that his results were valid cases of negative 
transfer and explained them by the larger number and persistence 
of errors, relative to those of the normal group, made in a certain 
blind alley whose position corresponded to a section of the true 
pathway in a maze previously learned. 

3. These comparative results furnish additional evidence for 
the principle brought out by Webb,* concerning the dependence of 
transfer upon the order in which the mazes are mastered. Thus, 
to repeat, we found that the nature of the transfer was positive in 
one direction and negative in the other, with respect to errors. 

4. The learning curve of the group transferred from maze A to 
maze B exhibits two prominent differences from that of the nor- 
mal group in maze B. The transferred group required many more 
errors in the initial trial, and decidedly fewer in the succeeding 
period; but during the remainder of the learning, the records ap- 
proximate one another. 

The curve for the group transferred from maze B to maze A, 
on the other hand, when compared with that for the normal group 
in the latter maze, exhibits the opposite tendencies. Thus the error 
scores are reduced in the initial trial, but are markedly increased 
over the normal series during the period of the learning immedi- 
ately following, after which there is a close correspondence with 
the normal records. 


* Webb: “Transfer of Training and Retroaction.” Psych. Rev. Mon. Suppl. _ 
Vol. 24 (1917), DP. 34-35. 

2 Wiltbank: “Transfer of Training in White Rats upon Various Series of 
Mazes.” Behav. Mon. Vol 4 (1919), p. 18 ff. 

3 Op. cit., p. 40 ff. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 47 


The results in neither of these instances conform with the locus 
of the transfer as determined by Webb,* who found that the trans- 
ferred groups in general were saved the equivalent of the errors 
made during the first five trials; that is, they began the second 
problem at a level which approximated that reached by the normal 
group in the fifth trials. In our results, on the contrary, the locus 
of the transfer is confined to approximately the first ten trials, and 
the kind of transfer is a function of the order of the learning. In 
one group a positive effect is evident in the initial trial and a nega- 
tive effect in the nine remaining trials, whereas the exact opposite 
obtains for the other transferred group. 

The difference in the transfer effect of the two mazes is un- 
doubtedly a function of their size and structure, and of the habits 
developed in the original problem. When the large maze A was 
the first to be mastered, subjects became accustomed to making 
long bold sweeping movements. Consequently, when these habits 
were carried over to the small maze B, where the units were de- 
cidedly reduced in size, this mode of reaction led them to traverse 
each section its full length, with the result that, because of the 
peculiarity in structure of this maze, the tendency to enter cul-de- 
sacs was minimized. Previous experience with retracing also oper- 
ated to decrease this type of error. On the other hand, because the 
subjects had learned to locate the goal in the large maze A opposite 
the starting-point, they naturally inferred, when they attempted to 
learn maze B, that this goal would be similarly situated. Such an 
erroneous conception exercised a detrimental effect upon the learn- 
ing, which, however, was limited to the first trial, and this fact 
is the probable explanation for the excessive amounts of error oc- 
curring in that period. 

When the small maze B was the first to be mastered, the subjects 
became accustomed to executing an intricate series of short 
movements, each terminated by contact with the groove. This 
type of reaction, persisting in the subsequent attempts to learn 
the larger maze A, proved detrimental. For example, if the ten- 
dency to make short finely coordinated movements predominated, 





4 Op. cit., p. 45 ff. 


48 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


subjects were hesitant about making the long straight forward ad- 
vances required, and were inclined to enter the first cul-de-sacs 
encountered. Consequently, they experienced unusual difficulty in 
eliminating the blind alleys numbered 3, 5, 13, 14 and 15 (see I’ig- 
ure I), On the other hand, if the tendency prevailed to move the 
stylus in one direction until further progress was prevented, des- 
pite the length of the section, subjects invariably entered cul-de- 
sacs 6, 8 and 10, and experienced greater difficulty in eliminating 
these than they otherwise would have. 

Moreover, the difference in location of the goal in maze A prob- 
ably operated to produce negative transfer. When maze B was the 
first to be mastered, subjects followed a somewhat circuitous route, 
discovering the location of the terminus proximate to the starting- 
point. In learning maze A subsequently, they naturally inferred 
that the goal here again would be situated near the starting-point. 
Consequently, when the vicinity of the cul-de-sacs 10 and 12 ( Fig- 
ure 1) was reached, they almost invariably ceased further attempts 
in the forward direction. Confining their explorations to this re- 
gion, they entered and re-entered these cul-de-sacs, then inaugu- 
rated retracing movements, and after experiencing unusual diffi- 
culty in locating the long forward run at the right side of the maze, 
were loth to venture in that direction. This attitude persisted for 
some time and apparently was but little affected by correct localiza- 
tions of the goal obtained by chance. These features, therefore, 
partially account for the negative transfer in errors, while the 
mere fact of previous experience in a similar task explains the pos- 
itive transfer obtained in trials. 

II. The second question to be discussed is the comparative effect 
of controlled versus uncontrolled learning upon transfer. Inas- 
much as it is a common observation that independent, self-ini- 
tiated activity in seeking solutions and overcoming difficulties en- 
ables an individual to cope with future problematical situations 
more successfully, we might, with a certain degree of confidence, 
anticipate that the uncontrolled groups would be superior to the 
controlled groups in the learning of the second maze. Such, how- 


ever, was not the case, as an examination of the data presented in 
Table XVI reveals. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 49 


TABLE XVI 
Trials and Errors in the Transferred Controlled and Normal Groups 


Errors Pctg. of Saving and Loss 





Retracings | Cul-de-sacs | Trials | Retracings Cul- de-sacs 





B(A_ - 0)|28.7 + 15.91256.1 + 06.6] 65.4 + 30.1| . ee He 
B(A I- 2)|16.7 + 7.7|179.1 = 92.4] 34.3 ~ 24.8 42 30 48 
B(A 3- 4)|26.9 + 17.3/388.9 + 152.6] 74.6 + 47.4 6 —52 —I4 
B(A 7- 8)|25.7 + 10.4]275.7 + 101.2] 45.0 + 30.4] 10 — 8 31 
B(AII-12) |26.8 + 9.5|290.8 + 108.4] 52.1 + 28.7] 7 —I4 20 
(A I- 4)]22.7 + 11.1/365.2 + 167.2| 84.4 + 51.3} 21 —43 —30 
B(A 1- 8)j21.5 + 10.4]264.2 + 82.7] 44.5 + 32.3 25 — 3 32 
B(A 1-12)\21.3 + 9.5|266.4 + 64.5] 65.5 — 35.7] 26 —4 fe) 
B(A 1-16)|18.3 + 12.0|203.3 + 76.7] 51.5 + 498 36 21 21 
A(B -0)/268 + 9.0] 95.3 51.7|160.2 + 60.8] .. ‘3s ae 
A(B I- 4)j21.6 + 9.1] 83.7 = 55.31143.7 + 47.8] 109 12 10 
A(B 1- 8)|18.3 = 4.9] 80.7 41.3/126.3 + 57.5 22 15 21 
A(B 1-12)|16.3 + 4.0] 41.7 + 33.5] 78.0 + 20.1 39 56 5I 
ee ee eRe eee eee ee See eee Lem een wereee eee = FUlS se ee ee 


The table presents the records for all the transferred groups, 
controlled as well as uncontrolled, together with the percentages 
of saving and loss of the former with respect to the latter. Each 
transferred group is designated by the letter of the second maze 
learned, A or B, while in the parenthesis following is specified the 
amount and position of guidance introduced in the learning of the 
first maze. Thus B (A 1-4) denotes that group which, after hay- 
ing been controlled in the learning of maze A by four initial guid- 
ed trials, subsequently mastered maze B. 


The following are the outstanding features in these data: 


I. All the controlled groups exhibit a greater positive transfer 
than do the uncontrolled groups with respect to trials. The savings 
relative to the trial record of group B (A -o) vary from 6% to 
42%, and those of the controlled groups under the reverse order 
of transfer, relative to group A (B -0), vary from 19% to 39%. 

2. With respect to errors, when the direction of transfer was 
from maze A to maze B, the controlled conditions of learning did 
not prove in every case as effective as the uncontrolled. In fact 
the guidance exercised a detrimental effect in transfer upon re- 
tracing errors with but two exceptions, although it exercised a 
favorable effect upon cul-de-sac errors, save for two exceptions. 


50 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


When the order of mastery was from maze B to maze A, how- 
ever, the controlled conditions of learning were consistently more 
effective upon both types of error than were the uncontrolled. 

3. There is a tendency manifested in the data of the groups 
transferred from maze A to maze B for the guidance to exert a 
selective influence upon the two kinds of error. With but few ex- 
ceptions, the control minimized the tendency to enter cul-de-sacs — 
and increased the tendency to retrace. | 

4. No learning curves are included in this section, for they 
would supplement but little the facts adduced. The controlled 
groups were, in general, saved the equivalent of the errors made 
by the uncontrolled groups in the initial trial. Throughout the sub- 
sequent learning, they approximated more or less closely the rec- 
ords for the latter groups, but when the largest amounts of saving 
were exhibited, they maintained somewhat lower levels. 

III. Having considered the general results for all transferred 
groups, we shall next examine the relative effect upon transfer of 
varying amounts and positions of control introduced in the learn- 
ing of the first maze. The following tendencies are illustrated in 
the comparative data presented in Table XVI: 

1. There is a tendency for the degree of transfer, when meas- 
ured in terms of trials, to vary directly with the amount of initial 
guidance given in the first maze. Among the groups transferred 
from maze A to maze B, with the exception of group B (A 1-2), 
the greater the amount of initial guidance, the fewer the number 
of trials required to master the second maze. Thus the group given 
four initial controls exhibits a saving over the trial record of the 
transferred normal group of 21%; that given eight controls, of 
25% ; while the groups given twelve and sixteen controls exhibit 
savings of 26% and 36% respectively. Two initial controls intro- 
duced in the learning of maze A, however, were conducive to the 
greatest amount of benefit in the learning of maze B, as is evident 
in the saving of 42% for group B (A 1-2). 

With the reverse order of transfer there is a marked tendency 
for the savings in trials to increase directly with the amount of ini- 
tial guidance given in the first maze. 

The same tendency is manifested without exception in errors, 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 51 


when the direction of learning was from maze B to maze A. For 
the reverse direction of learning, the tendency is not so marked. 
It is evident, however, that the smallest and the largest amounts 
are conducive to the greatest transfer effect, medium amounts be- 
ing productive of quite irregular effects. We may conclude, there- 
fore, that the general rule is for the effectiveness of the control 
upon transfer to vary directly with the amount. 

2. Any evidence as to the effect of varying positions of guid- 
ance upon transfer is limited to the results for one maze, and to 
the four groups given two controls at various stages in the learn- 
ing process. The introduction of the control initially in the original 
problem mastered is more effective upon the subsequent problem 
than the interpolation of that same amount at any other period. 
Thus group B (A 1-2) exhibits greater savings in both trials and 
errors relative to the normal group, than do the groups given two 
controls at intermediate positions. Moreover, if group B (A 3-4) 
be excepted, as is justifiable because its excessive losses are due 
solely to one individual’s record, we notice a tendency for the rec- 
ords of the two remaining groups to become increasingly inferior 
with respect to both trials and errors. If we eliminate one case, 
therefore, the rule is that the efficacy of the guidance upon trans- 
fer varies directly with its proximity to the initial trial. 

IV. The fourth question to be discussed is the relationship be- 
tween the efficacy of the guidance upon transfer and its efficacy 
upon learning. The necessary comparative data are presented in 
Table XVII, where the trials and errors in the learning are con- 
trasted with the trials and errors in the transfer. 

Inspection of these data reveals the fact that the amount and 
position of guidance which was most effective in learning was not 
that which was most effective in transfer. It is evident that the 
optimum amount in learning maze A, as measured by trials, was 
two controls inserted in the third and fourth trials, whereas the 
optimum amount in the transfer proved to be two controls inserted 
in the initial position. In the learning of maze B, eight initial con- 
trols were most effective upon both trials and errors, whereas in 
the transfer to maze A, twelve initial controls were productive of 
the maximal effectiveness. . 


52 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


TABLE XVII 


Trials and Errors in the Learning of the First Maze and in the Transfer 
to the Second Maze 














Group Trials Errors Group Trials Errors 
A -0 28.8 1904.5 B(A - 0) 28.7 321.5 
A I- 2 22.2 53.4 B(A I- 2) | 16.7 213.4 
A 3-4 19.1 164.5 B(A 3- 4) 26.9 463.5 
A 7-8 24.3 173.4 B(A 7- 8) 25.7 320.7 
AII-12 30.1 273.8 B(AII-12) 26.8 342.9 
A I- 4 29.1 72.0 B(A TI- 4) 22.7 449.6 
A 1-8 7s 69.8 B(A I- 8) 25 308.7 
A I-12 29.9 36.4 B(A I-12) 21.3 331.9 
A 1-16 41.1 43.2 B(A 1-16) 18.3 2548 
B -o 29.2 430.4 A(B -o0) 26.8 255.5 
B it="4 20.3 134.4 A(B I- 4) 21.6 227.4 
B 1-8 16.3 22.8 A(B t- 8) 18.3 207.0 
B 1-12 22.5 51.9 A(B I-12) 16.3 119.7 











By arranging in order of their effectiveness the actual numer- 
ical data for trials and errors obtained in both the learning and 
the transfer, and correlating these series of values, we may com- 
pare the effectiveness of the control irrespective of the interrelated 
factors of amount and position. Since nine groups were trans- 
ferred from maze A to maze B, and four groups from maze B 
to maze A, 135 cases are represented in the first correlations and 
60 in the second. The coefficients obtained by Spearman’s rank 
method of correlation are presented in Table X VIII. 


TABLE XVIII 


Correlations Between Trials and Errors in Learning and Transfer 








Avs Bo B-A 
Trials -b Trials .10 125 
Trials + Errors 15 19 
Errors 4. Errors BY; 56 
Errors + Trials 64 ran 


In these data a definite relationship appears between the efficacy 
of the guidance as measured by trials in the learning, and its ef- 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 53 


ficacy upon transfer, since the correlations, though comparative- 
ly small, are positive in both directions. So far as the efficacy of 
guidance upon errors in the learning is concerned, we find that 
the degree of relationship to its efficacy upon transfer is much 
higher for both mazes. In particular is this true for the relation- 
ship between errors in the learning and trials in the transfer, the 
coefficients being .64 and .51 for the two directions of transfer. 
Both because these coefficients are large enough and based upon a 
sufficient number of cases to possess statistical validity, and be- 
cause the tendency is consistent throughout, we are justified in as- 
suming that the groups which, due to the efficacy of the control 
required the least number of errors to learn the first maze, required 
the fewest trials and errors to master the second maze. This po- 
sition is further supported by the fact that the controlled learn- 
ing was more effective upon transfer than the uncontrolled. The 
outstanding difference in the two conditions which was com- 
mon to both mazes was the fact that guidance invariably reduced 
errors in the learning. 

Since the aspect of error elimination in the learning was con- 
ducive to the greatest effect upon transfer, any explanatory prin- 
ciple is undoubtedly to be sought in those factors which operated 
to reduce error. These were in the main the amount and position 
of the guidance, the rule being that the greater the amount of 
guidance given in the initial position, the greater was the reduc- 
tion of errors. Consequently the more the control simplified the 
learning by eliminating the excessive exploratory activities during 
the initial stages, the greater was the transfer effect. 

Several possible hypotheses for this fact suggest themselves, 
but because of the complexity of the situation and the lack of 
factual data, one has as much a priori plausibility as another. For 
example it is conceivable that subjects derived a general concep- 
tual knowledge of the maze situation through guidance, which 
enabled them to discriminate between correct and incorrect re- 
sponses, and that they carried over this discriminative capacity to 
the subsequent problem. Certain introspective data, at least, would 
seem to support this explanation. Again, it is possible that various 
habits and attitudes conducive to error elimination in the learning 


54 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


were more deeply impressed in controlled conditions than in un- 
controlled, and so functioned favorably in the subsequent problem. 

Whatever the explanation may be, the fact remains that the 
conditions which were most effective upon the reduction of errors 
in the learning were most effective in the transfer. This feature 
in our experimental results is unique and should be recognized in 
the formulation of any theory of transfer. It cannot very readily 
be explained in terms of the theory postulated by Thorndike, ac- 
cording to which transfer occurs between two activities only when 
they possess identical neural elements or bonds of connection, the 
degree of transfer being proportional to the degree of identity of 
the bonds. In our experiments we should expect the greatest 
amount of transfer to obtain where the activities in the two situa- 
tions exhibit the closest degree of correspondence. This condition 
is more nearly approximated in the free, unconstrained, trial and 
error method of mastering each maze, but we have demonstrated 
that under these very circumstances the least amount of transfer 
is obtained. When the activities are relatively the most divergent 
in the two situations, as in the case when the exploratory impulses 
were inhibited in the first maze and unrestrained in the second, 
the greatest amount of transfer was obtained. 

Our results are relevant to the theory of generalization advo- 
cated by Judd, according to which it is the manner of instruction 
which determines the degree of transfer. He has emphasized this 
in the following quotation: “The first and most. striking fact 
which is to be drawn from school experience is that one and the 
same subject-matter may be employed with one and the same stu- 
dent with wholly different results, according to the mode of pre- 
sentation. If the lesson is presented in one fashion, it will produce 
a very large transfer; whereas if it is presented in an entirely dif- 
ferent fashion, it will be utterly barren of results for other phases 
of mental life.” ° 

It is possible that the phrase “‘mode of presentation,” as used by 
Judd, refers primarily to the associative and assimilative pro- 
cesses thereby stimulated. In this narrow sense, it is doubtful 





5 Judd: “The Psychology of High School Subjects.” 1915. p. 412. 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 55 


whether our results are to be explained in terms of his theory. If, 
however, Judd means to include under this phrase any mode of 
learning induced by tuition, our data may be subsumed under his 
theory, for evidently the degree of transfer was a function of the 
way in which the first maze was mastered. 


CHAPIER'VI 


DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT EFFECTS OF GUIDANCE 


The purpose of the present chapter is to determine whether any 
relations obtain between the direct effect of the guidance upon one 
problem, and its indirect effect upon that same problem through 
transfer. By direct effect of the guidance, we refer to the influence 
of the guidance introduced during the process of mastering a giv- 
en maze, for example, A. By the indirect effect of the guidance, 
we mean the influence of the guidance apparent in the learning 
records for that same maze A, by groups which were given cor- 
responding amounts of guidance in learning maze B, and which 
were subsequently transferred to maze A. 

The comparative data may be found in Table XIX. The records 
of three groups in the learning of maze A are compared with the 
records of the three groups transferred to maze A, which were 
given equal amounts of control in learning maze B. The corre- 
sponding records for maze B are also presented. 


TABLE XIX 


Trials and Errors in the Learning of a Given Maze Versus Those in the 
Transfer to that Maze 











Group Trials Errors Group Trials Errors 
AUREL 28.8 194.5 A 28.8 194.5 
Al- 4 29.1 72.0 A(BrI- 4) 21.6 227.4 
A1- 8 27.5 69.8 A(Br- 8) «« 183 207.0 
A I-12 29.9 36.4 A(Br-12) 16.3 119.7 
Bapawo 20.2 436.4 B 29.2 436.4 
Bi- 4 20.3 134.4 B(AI- 4) 23°97 449.6 
Bi- 8 16.3 22.8 B(ArT- 8) 21.5 308.7 
Byrerr 22.5 51.9 B(AI-12) 21.3 331.9 





From these data the following conclusions may be derived: 
1. Guidance introduced directly in the learning is decidedly 


56 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 57 


more effective in reducing errors than guidance introduced indi- 
rectly through transfer. The total error scores in the learning are 
markedly reduced in all cases, whereas in the transfer they are in- 
creased in three groups, and when reduction occurs it is compara- 
tively slight. The explanatien for this feature is obviously the 
sheer physical fact of error prevention by the guidance. 

2. The efficacy of varying amounts of guidance, directly intro- 
duced, corresponds exactly to its efficacy indirectly introduced 
through transfer, when it is measured in terms of errors. Thus, 
if the error scores of the controlled groups in learning and trans- 
fer be arranged in descending order, a perfect correlation exists 
between them for both mazes. This is but a further illustration of 
the fact brought out in the preceding chapter. That condition of 
learning which produced the minimum amount of errors was con- 
ducive to the maximum effect in transfer. Not only is this feature 
evident when the results in learning one maze are compared with 
those in transfer to the other maze, but also we find it illustrated 
when the results of direct and indirect guidance are compared in 
one maze. 

3. Measured in terms of trials, the efficacy of direct versus in- 
direct guidance is a function of the maze activities. 

For maze A guidance indirectly introduced is the more effective. 
Thus each amount of the control produced lower trial records in 
the transfer to maze A than did the corresponding amounts of 
the control introduced in the learning of maze A by the experi- 
menter. This fact is probably to be accounted for by the explana- 
tions hitherto given in discussions of the learning results for each 
maze. Thus because of the simplicity of maze A, large amounts of 
guidance produced attitudes such as over self-confidence and con- 
viction of the ease of the problem, or passivity and too great de- 
pendence upon the experimenter, which proved detrimental in the 
learning as measured by trials. On the other hand, corresponding 
amounts of guidance introduced in maze B did not engender the 
same unfavorable attitudes because of the complexity of the prob- 
lem and the amount to be learned. Consequently when groups 
which mastered maze B were transferred to maze A, they lacked 


58 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


these attitudes whose effect was deleterious, and their perform- 
ance was therefore superior with respect to trials. 

For the other maze B, direct guidance is the more effective 
when measured in terms of trials, with but one exception. This 
fact is in accord with the assumption made in the preceding para- 
graph. If unfavorable attitudes were developed during the period 
of the guidance in maze A, we should expect their influence to be 
manifest in the subsequent transfer to maze B, and the trial rec- 
ords to be relatively increased over those in the learning of maze 
B. The one group which represents a slight exception to this state- 
ment is that given twelve controls in the learning of maze A, 
namely group B (A 1-12). The detrimental effects of too great an 
amount of guidance directly introduced in maze B were relatively 
larger than the detrimental effects carried over from the previous 
mastery of maze A. 

4. The efficacy of varying amounts of guidance directly intro- 
duced, when measured in terms of trials, shows but slight corre- 
spondence with the efficacy of the same amounts indirectly intro- - 
duced through transfer, in both mazes. This is to be expected be- 
cause of the difference in the effects exerted by the same amounts 
of guidance upon trials in the learning of each maze, and because 
of the interaction of the factors mentioned above. Moreover, this 
fact is in accord with the data adduced in the preceding chapter, — 
namely : the efficacy of the control upon trials in the learning bears 
but slight relationship to its efficacy upon transfer, The same 
feature is illustrated here, where the direct and indirect effects of 
the guidance are compared for a given maze. 


CHAPTER VII 


SUMMARY AND RESULTS 


This investigation has been limited to the effect of manual guid- 
ance as a control upon the learning of stylus mazes by human 
subjects. The evidence furnished by these experiments supports 
the position that such a control is beneficially effective. We may 
summarize our results in terms of the seven propositions outlined 
in Chapter I. 

1. All the groups given initial guidance attained a certain de- 
gree of mastery over the problem during the control, since they 
required less errors and fewer subsequent unguided trials to learn 
the maze than the unguided groups. 

The same statement is true of the groups given interpolated 
guidance at intermediate stages in learning maze B, and of all 
groups save two in learning maze A. 

2. The amount of guidance in a given position which was pro- 
ductive of the optimum results was a function both of the maze 
and of the criteria employed. 

In maze A there was a tendency for the effectiveness of the 
guidance in a given position, when measured in terms of trials, 
to vary inversely with the amount,—two controlled trials being 
productive of the maximum benefit. When measured in terms of 
errors, on the other hand, the efficacy of the guidance, with but 
two exceptions, tended to vary directly with the amount. 

In maze B the effectiveness of the guidance, in a given position, 
upon both trials and errors increased in proportion to the amount 
up to a certain point, beyond which additional amounts produced 
less beneficial results. The optimum number proved to be eight 
initial controls. 

3. The position of the guidance in the learning from which 
the optimum results accrued was the same in both mazes, but 
varied with the criteria employed. 

Measured in terms of trials, a given amount of guidance intro- 

59 


60 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


duced at an early stage in the learning exerted a more beneficial 
influence than when introduced initially, but when it was inter- 
polated at an advanced stage in the learning, there was a decrease 
in beneficial concequences. 

Measured in terms of errors, however, the effectiveness of the 
guidance varied directly with proximity to the initial trials. 

4. The efficacy of the guidance was a function of the maze 
activity. Without exception a given amount and position of guid- 
ance exerted a more beneficial effect upon the mastery of maze B 
than upon that of maze A. | 

5. The degree of transfer produced by the controlled type of 
learning was invariably greater than that produced by the uncon- 
trolled type of learning, as indicated by trials. The same result 
was obtained with respect to errors in one order of transfer, but 
in the reverse order of transfer the guidance exercised a detri- 
mental effect upon retracing errors. 

A distinct relationship was exhibited between the amount and 
position of guidance which exerted the maximum effect upon 
errors in the learning, and the trials and errors made in the trans- 
fer. The greater the amount of guidance given in the initial posi- 
tion, and the greater the error reduction, the greater was the 
transfer effect. 

6. Guidance introduced directly in the learning was more ef- 
fective upon error elimination in both mazes than guidance indi- 
rectly introduced through transfer, but was less effective upon trial 
reduction in maze A. 

The efficacy of varying amounts of guidance measured in terms 
of errors was the same irrespective of whether it was directly or 
indirectly introduced. Slight correspondence, however, was mani- 
fested between the direct and the indirect effects of varying 
amounts of guidance upon trials. 

7. Throughout the preceding paragraphs we have emphasized 
the beneficial aspects of manual guidance as a control. The prac- 
tical question which is of prime importance from the standpoint 
of education is the relative efficacy of controlled versus uncon- 
trolled trials. Are given amounts and positions of guidance in- 
variably more beneficial than corresponding amounts of unguided 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 61 


trials, and did all the controlled groups learn the act with relatively 
less expenditure of effort than the uncontrolled groups? In other 
words, is this method of instruction always preferable to the 
normal undirected methqd? 

Our results indicate that the relative effectiveness of guidance 
is a function of the maze activity. 

In maze B, each amount and position of the control investigated 
proved more effective than the corresponding uncontrolled trials. 

In maze A, each amount of guidance given in the initial posi- 
tion and interpolated in the early period of the learning was more 
effective only when measured by the criterion of total errors. Ac- 
cording to the criterion of total trials, two controls given in any 
position during the first eight trials, and four controls given dur- 
ing the second four trials alone proved relatively more effective. 
When measured by the criterion of the errors required to com- 
plete the learning subsequent to the guidance, only one amount of 
control, namely two guided trials, given either initially or in the 
third and fourth trials, proved more beneficial than an equal num- 
ber of unguided trials. 

Although any broad generalization on the basis of these results 
would be unwarranted, we may conclude that the relative efficacy 
of this form of control is a function of the particular act of motor 
skill to be learned. In some problems it may exercise more bene- 
ficial results than self-directed trials in whatever amount and posi- 
tion it is introduced during the early period of the learning. In 
other problems its efficacy may be decidedly limited. In any event, 
experimentation alone can determine the specific amount and po- 
sition of guidance which are conducive to more effective results 
than the normal unguided method of instruction. 

Learning controlled by manual guidance constitutes a method 
which in the field of Comparative Psychology has been referred to 
as that of “putting the animal through the act to be learned.” 

Two variations of the method have been utilized: first, where 
the animal was bodily carried over the route of the act; and sec- 
ond, where the paw of the animal was put through the act. With 
respect to the former, Thorndike,* to whom credit must be given 


1 Thorndike: “Animal Intelligence” (1911), p. 101 ff. 


62 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


for first investigating the problem, obtained only negative results. 
He dropped cats through a hole in the top of a puzzle-box, and 
although subsequently they opened the box, escaped, and were fed, 
they never of their own accord re-entered the box. Cole* and 
Hunter,’ on the other hand, found that raccoons and rats did learn 
to climb to the top of a box and jump inside after they had been 
passively dropped through many times. 

With respect to the second variation of this method, 7.e., when 
the paw of the animal was put through, Thorndike again obtained 
only negative results in the case of dogs and cats. He placed the 
animal in the puzzle-box, took hold of its paw, and with it pulled 
down the loop or pushed around the button necessary to open the 
door. No animal which failed to perform the act by its own un- 
aided efforts ever learned by being put through. Moreover, the 
time consumed to learn the act with instruction was no shorter 
than the normal time without it, and save for one exception, the 
movement which the animal made to open the door was different 
from the movement which Thorndike had put it through. Cole, 
again, obtained positive results by this method. Not only was the 
learning process much more rapid in the case of raccoons which 
were put through the act a few times, but also animals which had 
failed of their own unaided efforts invariably succeeded immedi- 
ately after being put through; and if there were two possible 
and equally difficult movements by which a given act could be 
performed, the tuition determined which one the raccoon adopted. 

Although the contradictoriness of this evidence may be offset 
by such considerations as the difference in species and consequent 
difference in instinctive organization, the variation in the number 
of times guidance was given, and the number .of animals em- 
ployed in each experiment, we are forced to withhold any decision 
concerning the effectiveness of this method in animal learning. 

The conditions in the second method mentioned above resemble 
our conditions inasmuch as both animal and human subjects were 





2 Cole: “Concerning the Intelligence of Raccoons.” Jour. Comp. Neur. and 
Psych., Vol. 17 (1907), p. 235 ff. 

8’ Hunter: “A Note on the Behavior of the White Rat.” Jour. Animal Behav., 
ViGl2 (IOI2 Ge Deiray: 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 63 


relatively passive—the movements being both initiated and di- 
rected by the experimenter. They differ from one another, how- 
ever, in several respects. Neither the motives for learning, the 
nature of the problem, nor the knowledge of the problem were 
comparable in the two situations. The human subjects were de- 
prived of vision; their attention was more readily controlled; and 
a certain amount of muscular innervation was required to hold the 
stylus. Finally, the human subjects inferred the purpose of the 
experiment, since they were requested to obtain all the benefit pos- 
sible from the guidance. 

Thorndike concluded that the inability of his animals to learn 
was due to the lack of a motor impulse which might be associated 
with the‘sensory stimulation, and assumed that if the animals had 
themselves initiated and directed their movements, learning would 
have occurred. Our results indicate, on the other hand, that in the 
case of human subjects, the absence of self-directed activity, and 
the substitution of extraneous direction under certain conditions, 
facilitated the learning. We would not maintain, however, that 
the learning occurred in spite of the absence of the motor impulse, 
but rather that it occurred because motor impulses were present in 
all cases. Granted that the subjects were comparatively passive 
during the control, they were nevertheless innervating the arm 
musculature continually in order to grasp the stylus. Moreover 
they were forced to adapt the posture of the arm to the series of 
movements inaugurated by the experimenter and the flexion and 
extension, the motion to right and left were necessarily self-ini- 
tiated in part. 

In addition to the presence of this motor impulse which was con- 
fined within a definite neural segment, we have reason to believe 
from the behavior of many subjects, that innervation of the gross 
bodily musculature was involved in the learning during guidance. 
Occasionally the head of a subject would be inclined in one direc- 
tion and then in the other, corresponding to the succession of 
movements of the stylus, but most frequently the whole trunk 
would sway slightly back and forth, accompanying in a rhythmical 
way the series of movements inaugurated by the experimenter. 
By this means, presumably, a basis was afforded for the formation 


64 KATHERINE EVA LUDGATE 


of associations between sensory stimulations and responses, which 
functioned in the subsequent attempts at mastery. 

Finally, since we employed human subjects exclusively, it is 
probable that the learning was not strictly confined to sensori- 
motor levels, but was partially in ideational terms. In this case 
there need be no question of the presence of the motor impulses. 
The articulatory mechanism alone would suffice and the incipient | 
responses made to the sensory stimulations would serve to control 
the later learning. 

The fact that this method was ineffective in some cases of ani- 
mal learning is probably to be accounted for in other terms than 
that of the absence of the motor impulse. Presumably Thorndike 
would agree to our statements concerning the presence of the first- 
mentioned motor impulses in human subjects, and even grant that 
to a certain extent similar ones were functioning in the case of 
his dogs and cats, when their paws were guided through the cor- 
rect act. The difference between the results for human and animal 
subjects may be due to the greater ease with which the attention 
of the former can be controlled, their knowledge of the purpose 
of the guidance, or the fact that their learning was in part upon 
an ideational level. . 

The results of our experiments have an obvious educational 
significance because of their bearing upon instructional technique. 
They also have theoretical significance because of their relation to 
the problem concerning the value of errors in the learning pro- 
cess. The assumption is generally made that errors are valuable in 
the acquisition of a novel adaptive response. The greater the ex- 
ploratory activity and the more varied the forms of attack, the 
more rapidly will the solution be discovered. On the other hand, 
after the discovery of the successful act, the contention is ad- 
vanced that errors are detrimental, inasmuch as they indicate im- 
pulsive tendencies which must be gradually eliminated. 

Our results in one maze support the latter statement, since,a 
large percentage of the errors made in the early process of fixation 
proved absolutely unnecessary, so far as the expenditure of effort 
and the rapidity of the learning were concerned. In the other 
maze, error prevention under very limited conditions alone was 


EFFECT OF MANUAL GUIDANCE UPON MAZE LEARNING 65 


more valuable than the making of errors and their subsequent re- 
jection. In both problems a certain number of errors was required 
for mastery, however, a fact which indicates that the process of 
active inhibition is an essential element in most learning. 

The assumption concerning the value of errors in the discoy- 
ery of the solution of the problem was not tested in our investiga- 
tion, because the period of the control was in no instance limited 
to the initial trial—a certain portion of the fixation process being 
invariably included. The fact that eleven subjects out of the forty- 
five given initial guidance in the learning of maze B attained com- 
plete mastery over that problem during the period of the control, 
as indicated by the criterion of four correct successive trials, re- 
veals the:possibility of an act of skill being perfected when the 
solution is given, and the process of fixation occurs without error 
rejection. 

When the value of errors in one problem is determined by the 
character of the response in a subsequent problem, our results 
support the conclusion that error prevention in any portion of the 
early stage of the learning is more valuable than the making of 
errors and their subsequent elimination. 








BF21 .P96 
The effect of nee sean — maze 


id LAL 


1 1012 00008 5433 





